
^ J 





^^^'•'! 








Book_ 






/ 



THE 



K ATUNES 



U^ 



MAYA HISTORY. 



A CHAPTER IN THE 



EARLY CHRONOLOGY OF CENTRAL AMERICA, 
With Special Reference to the Pio Perez Manuscript. 



BY 

PHILIPP f!^^-M:^^m\, P„. D. 



;^^' 



'K:- ■ 



<\ A- 

\_Translated from the German, by Slephen Salisbury, Jr.] 



[PROCEEDmOS OF AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY, OCTOBER 21, 1879.] 



WORCESTER, MASS.: 
PRESS OF CHARLES HAMILTON. 

188 0. 



■Vir 



A'O 



THE KATUNES OE MAYA HISTOEY. 



THE KATUNES OF MAYA HISTORY. 



NOTE BY THE COMMITTEE OF PUBX.ICATION. 

The Publishing Committee are glad of the opportunity to print 
another paper from the pen of Professor Valentini. His pre.vious con- 
tributions have been favorably received by some of the most competent 
judges. . He is always ingenious and suggestive, taking care to sustain 
his views by adequate collateral information, and leaving an impression 
of earnestness and thoroughness, even though the reader should not be 
able always to see the way through his bold inferences to the important 
conclusions deduced from them. 

It seems apparent that new phases of opinion respecting the position 
in the world's history held by the races occupying the central portions 
of the American Continent may be looked for in the near future. Or 
rather, perhaps, it may be claimed that vestiges of ancient and inde- 
pendent culture, of revolutions, conquests, and changing dynasties, 
extending back to a remote period of time, which have hitherto simply 
excited and bewildered travellers and explorers, bid fair to he subjected 
to tests and comparisons derived from wider and closer observation, 
for which the means are accumulating, and from which definite results 
are anticipated. 

It is remarkable how one tidal wave of investigation after another 
has, at difl"erent eras, invaded and receded from these regions, carrying 
from them more or less of the fragments of their architectural, monu- 
mental, and pictorial records — the sources of doubtful and unsatis- 
factory interpretation. The Spanish chroniclers ; the scientists of the 
period of Humboldt and his contemporaries ; the French government and 
the learned societies of France, ijnitiug their efi"orts to render efifective 
the honest but undisciplined enthusiasm ofBrasseurde Bourbourg; all 
have experienced a subsidence of interest arising mainly from a want of 
success in yielding a sufficiently plausible solution of a mysterious sub- 
ject. The death of Brasseur, the fall of Maximilian, and the political 
distractions of the French government and people, are not alone the 
causes of suspended action on the part of the learned bodies of France. 
They deemed it prudent to discredit the judgment and correctness of 
their own agent. One at least of Brasseur's Commission publicly 
disavowed responsibility for his opinions ; and his attempt to interpret 



• 6 

the Codex Troano by means of the alphabet of Bishop Landa was 
pronounced by themselves to be a failure. 

How signally the explorations of Del Rio, of Dupaix, of Galindo, and 
of De Waldeck, failed to make a permanent impression on the public 
mind ! How soon the illustrated narrative of Stephens became in a 
measure disregarded, and even his reliableness questioned ! How com- 
pletely the nine ponderous folios of Lord Kingsborough's extensive 
collection fell dead from the press, until the great work to which he had 
devoted his life and his entire fortune sold in the market for less than a 
single useless production of Increase or Cotton Mather ! We have seen 
the elaborate and learned essays of Gallatin upon Mexican civilization 
slumbering with the long sleep of the Ethnological Society; the Geo- 
graphical Society cautious about travelling out of the routes of 
regular expeditious; even the sardonic "Nation," assumed arbiter in 
literature, politics, and science, and always ready for caustic criti- 
cism, hesitating to venture far beneath the surface of these important 
inquiries. The ill-fated Berendt has perished in the midst of his unfin- 
ished labors ; and, lastly, one of the most purely philosophical investi- 
gators of Indian habits and history reasons in a direction opposed to 
the antiquity and extent of aboi'iginal civilization. 

If there is to be a renewal of interest in Mexican archaeology, and a 
revived consciousness of something more to be gained from the relics 
of culture among the early races of this continent (a meaning in its 
mystical remains that has not been developed), our Society may claim 
its share in the re-kindling or fostering of the newly excited impulse. 
In saying this we do not overlook the preparation which recent studies 
of the general condition of prehistoric races has created for such 
investigations; but, in this particular field, it has had the fortune to 
draw special attention to certain regions and opportunities of research. 
This has been due to the earnest and liberal exertions of one of its 
members, who, some years since, passed a winter in Yucatan, and has 
kept up a correspondence with friends and acquaintances there.* 
He embodied his observations and experiences in a report on behalf 
of the Council rendei-ed in 1876. He has since endeavored to promote 
the operations of Dr. and Mrs. Le Plongeon in the actual field, 
and has assisted in preparing the papers of Professor Valentini for our 
publications, providing illustrations in all cases when practicable. The 
Report of the Council in the present number of "Proceedings " is largely 
devoted to an account, by the writerf of a visit to the city of Mexico, 
and his observations upon the country and its history. More than 
twelve years ago, in January, 1868, a generous member of the So- 
cietyj had the forethought to establish a department of the library 
composed of books relating to Spanish America, beginning with the gift 
of Lord Kingsborough's mammoth publication, and others, for the 



* S. Salisbury, Jr., Esq. f Col, John D. Washburn. JThe Hou. Isaac Davis. 



specialty of antiquities, and accompanied by a pecuniary foundation for 
future growth. The importance of a provision for this particular pur- 
pose becomes daily more conspicuous as attention is directed to that 
portion of the continent. 

It is gratifying to perceive that such movements, vpith the greater 
activity in publjshibg its " Anales" on the part of the Museo Na9ional 
de Mexico, and the issue Of such publications as that of Prof. Rau by 
the Smithsonian Institution,* and the private work of Mr. Short,t are 
not without their influence. 

The scheme, which, although not fully matured, we have reason to 
believe a real one, of sending an expedition to some of the original 
Mexican provinces for a thorough exploration, at the cost of a wealthy 
citizen of New York, the results to be printed in the North American 
Review, may be regarded as one of the fruits of the " Benaissance." 

S. F. Haven, 

For the Committee. 



InTkoductort Remakks. 

In the ensuing discussion an attempt is made to explain 
the so-called " Katunes of Maya history." 

The Manuscript which bears this name is written in the 
Maya language, and its discovery is of comparatively recent 
date. At its first publication in 1841 it could not fail to 
attract the attention of all those who were engaged in the 
study of ancient American history, becanse it unveiled a 
portion, of the history of Yucatan, which had been till 
then entirely unknown and seriously missed. At that date 
only a scanty number of data, loosely described, and re- 
ferring to an epoch removed from the Spanish conquest of 
the Peninsula by only a few decades, had appeared as the sole 
representatives of a long past, in which the builders of the 
ruined cities undoubtedly must have lived an eventful life, 
not to be counted by a few generations, but by a long and 
hardly calculable number of centuries. This vacuum of 
time the manuscript promised to fill out. Though it did 
not offer a history conceived in the common acceptation of the 

* The Palenque Tablet, in the U. S. National Museum. By Charles Rau, 1879. 
t The North Americans of Antiquity, their origin, migrations, and type of civilization 
considered. By John T. Short. 1880. 



8 7 

word, the brief epitome of events which it presented, began 
by telbng us of the arrival of foreigners from distant lands, 
who, step by step succeeded in conquering the Maya soil and 
who were brought into significant connection witli the name 
as well as the fall of cities now lying in rniris over the whole 
countiy. 

As to the authenticity of the events reported, they have been 
received by many students with a confidence and faith rarely 
manifested when discoveries of such importance are brought 
to light. As to the form in which they were presented, 
the author seemed to exhibit neither the skill of a professional 
nor the clumsiness of an occasional forger. If on the one hand 
the gaps he left betrayed a defective memory, this circum- 
stance should be held rather as an indication of his credibility. 
The material from which his information was derived, we 
might add, was extensive, and much of it was probably lost 
when he gave the account at a later period of his life. 

The events communicated being in themselves of the 
highest interest, rose in importance from the fact that 
they were arranged in successive epochs. A chance was 
thereby given to calculate the long .space of time that inter- 
vened between the arrival of the ancient and of the modern 
conquerors. This difficult task was attempted by the for- 
tunate discoverer himself, Sefior Juan Pio Perez, of Yucatan, 
accompanied by a learned discussion on ancient Maya chro- 
nology. His calculation furnishes the sum of 1392 years, 
the first initial date to be assigned to the jea.v 144 A. D., and 
the last to 1536 A. D. 

When, some years ago we undertook to examine the argu- 
ment of Senor Perez we were not at all astonished by the great 
antiquity of the date he had drawn from the Maya Manu- 
script. For, nearly at the same time, we had reached simi- 
lar results in an attempt made to utilize certain records 
which Ixtlilxochitl (1590), and Veytia (1760), (Kingsborough 
Collection, Yols. 8 and 9), have left regarding the earliest 
chronology of the Nahuatl tribes. By adopting a more 



9 

rational method of computation than these Mexican writers 
had followed, we were unable to withstand the conclusion, 
that the Nahuatl people who were immediate territorial 
neighbors of the Mayas, considered the year 258 A. D. the 
earliest date of their arrival on and occupancy of the Mexi- 
can soil. Thus we had reached in this line of investigation 
very nearly the same results with the Nahuatl as Senor Perez 
with the Maya chronology, and the suspicion began to dawn 
upon us that these two neighboring people might, possibly, 
have stood in a still closer than a mere territorial connection. 

These results, however, were only of a very problematical 
nature. They were derived from written reports, which, 
after all, could not be regarded as unquestionable authority. 
But they received a strong confirmation from a discovery 
we made later on the so-called Mexican Calendar Stone. In 
our discussion of this monument we believe that we have 
given ample proof of the fact, that its principal zone con- 
tains a sculptured record, showing a series of numerical 
symbols, from the computation of which the year 231 
A. D. resulted as that which the Nahuatls had accepted as 
the first date of their national era. 

Records presented in stone and compiled by the nation 
whose history they convey, must always be considered the 
most authentic evidence of historical truth. ISTow, were we 
also so fortunate as to possess some Maya monument, similar 
to the Mexican Calendar Stone, and were we also able to 
decipher it, we should thereby have the means for determin- 
ing Avhether Maya chronology extended back to an epoch 
different from that of the Nahuatl, or to one identical with 
it. That such a monument once existed we have no doubt. 
That it may still exist, we have no reasonable grounds for 
denying the possibility. It remains, however, still to be dis- 
covered and to be interpreted. But since the fortunate 
discovery has not yet been made, we must rest satisfied for 
the present with conclusions derived from extant written 
records. The only manuscript of this character thus far 



10 

brought to light, is tliat said to have been found at Mani,* 
which was translated by Seiior Perez from the Maya lan- 
guage, and accompanied by a very valuable chronological 
interpretation. 

Since the close revision we undertook of the latter, brought 
out very striking coincidences of early Maya dates with 
those of the Nahuatl, and especially with that indicated on 
the Calendar Stone, we thought it worth while to reprint 
the manuscript, to discuss its contents again, and to arrange 
them under new points of view. Kegarded by itself, the 
manuscript, indeed, might seem of only doubtful value in 
settling an important chronological question. But the com- 
parison of its earliest date with that of the Nahuatl monu- 
ment will enhance the value of each of them, because they 
may be considered as corroborative of each other. 



The Maya Manuscript. 

Maya. Translation. 

Lai u tzolan Katun lukci ti cab This is the series of " Katunes " 

ti yotoch Nonoual cante anilo Tutul that elapsed from the time of their 

Xiu ti chikin Zuiua; u luumil u departure from the land and house 

talelob Tulapan chiconahthan. of Nonoual, in which were the four 

Tutul Xiu, lying to the west of 
Zuina, going out of the country of 
Tulapan. 
§ 1. Cante bin ti Katun lie u § 1. Four epochs were spent in 
ximbalob ca uliob uaye yetel Holon travelling, before they arrived here 
Chantepeuh yetel u cuchulob : ca with Holonchantepeuh and his fol- 
hokiob ti petene uaxac Ahau bin lowers. When they began their 
yan cuchi, uac Ahau, can Ahau journey toward this island, it was 
cabil Ahau, cankal haab catac the 8th Ahau, and the 6th, 4th and 
hunppel haab; tumen hun piztun 2d were spent in travelling; because 
oxlahun Ahau cuchie ca uliob uay in the year of the 13th Ahau they 
ti petene cankal haab catac hunp- arrived at this island, making to- 
pel haab tu pakteil yetel cu xim- gether eighty-one years they were 
balob lukci tu luumilob ca talob travelling, between their departure 
uay ti petene Chacnouitan lae, u from their country and their arrival 
anoil lae 81. at this island of Chacnouitan. 

Years 81. 

* Historia de Yucatan. By Eligio Ancona, Merida, 1879, Vol. I., page 
95, note 1. 



11 



§ 2. Vaxac Ahau, nac Aliau, 
cabil Ajau kiichci Chacuoiiitan Ah- 
mekat Tutul Xiu hunppel liaab 
minan ti hokal haab cnchi yanob 
Chacnouitau lae : lai u habil lae. 

99 auos. 
§ 3. Laitun uchci u chicpahal 
t.zucubte Ziyan-caan lae Bakhalal, 
can Ahau, cabil Ahau, oxlahun 
Ahau oxkal haab cu tepalob Ziyau- 
caan ca emob uay lae : lai u haabil 
cu tepalob Bakhalal chuulte laitun 
chicpahci Chichen Itza.lae. 

60 alios. 

§ 4. Buluc Ahau, bolon Ahau, 
uuc Ahau, ho Ahau. ox Ahau, hun 
Ahau uac kal haab cu tepalob Chi- 
chen Itza ca paxi Chichen Itza, ca 
binob cahtal Charaputun ti yanhi u 
yotochob ah Ytzoab kuyen uincob 
lae. 120 anos. 

•§ 5. Vac Ahau, chucuc u luumil 
Chanputun, can Ahau, cabil Ahau, 
oxlahun Ahau, buluc Ahau, bolon 
Ahau, uuc Ahau, ho Ahau, ox 
Ahau, hun Ahau, lahca Ahau, la- 
hun Ajau, uaxac Ahau, paxciChan- 
putnn, oxlahun kaal haab cu tepa- 
lob Chanputun tumenel Ytza uincob 
ca talob u tzacle u yotochob tu 
eaten, laix tun u katunil binciob 
ah Ytzaob yalan che yalan aban 
yalau ak ti numyaob lae ; lai u habil 
cuchinbal lae. 260. 

§ 6. Vac Ahau, can Ahau, ca kal 
haabcatalob u heoob yoloch tu ea- 
ten ca tu zatahob Chakanputun : 
lay u habil lae. 40 

§ 7. Lai u katunil cabil Ahau, u 
heoci cab Ahcuitok Tutul Xiu 
Vxmal. Cabil Ahau, oxlahun Ahau, 
buluc Ahau, bolon Ahau, uuc Ahau, 
ho Ahau, ox Ahau, hun Ahau, 
lahca Ahau, lahun Ahau, lahun kal 
haab cu tepalob yetel u halach 
uinicil Chichen Itza yetel Mayalpan : 
lay u habil lae. 200 

3 



§ 2. The 8th Ahau, the 6th 
Ahau; in the 26. Ahau arrived 
Ajraekat Tutul Xiu, and ninety- 
nine years they remained in Chac- 
nouitan. Years 99. 

§ 3. In this time also took place 
the discovery of the province of 
Ziyan-caan or Bacalar, the 4th Ahau 
and 2d Ahau, or sixty years, they 
had ruled in Ziyan-caan when they 
came here. During these years of 
their government of the province 
of Bacalar occyrred the discovery 
of Chichen-Itza. Years 60. 

§ 4. The 11th Ahau, the 9th, 7th, 
5th, 8d and 1st Ahau, or 120 years, 
they ruled in Chichen-Itza, when it 
was destroyed, and they emigrated 
to Champoton, where the Itzaes, 
holy men, had houses. Years 120. 

§ 5. The 6th Ahau they took 
possession of the territory of Cham- ' 
potoii; the 4th Ahau, 2d, 13th, 
11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th, 
10th and 8th, Champoton was de- 
stroyed or abandoned. Two hun- 
dred and sixty years the Itzaes 
reigned in Champoton, when they 
returned in search of their homes, 
and they lived for several katunes 
under the uninhabited mountains. 
Years 260. 

§ 6. The 6th Ahau, 4th Ahau, 
after 40 years, they returned to 
their hemes once more and Cham- 
poton was lost to them. Years 40. 

§ 7. In this Katun of the 2d Ahau, 
Ajcuitok Tutul Xiu established 
himself in Uxmal ; the 2d Ahau, the 
13th, 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, the 
12th and 10th Ahau, equal to 200 
years, they governed in Uxmal, 
with the governors of Chichen-Itza 
and of Mayapan. Years 200. 



12 



§ 8. Lai u katunil buluc Ahau, 
bolon Ahau, uac Ahau, uaxac Ahau, 
paxci u halach uinicil Chicheu Itza 
tumenel u kebauthan Hunac-eel, ca 
uch ti Chacxibchac Chicheu Itzatu 
kebauthan Hunac-eel u halach uini- 
cil Mayalpan ichpac. Cankal haab 
catac lahun piz haab, tu lahun tun 
uaxac Ahau cuchie ; lai u haabil 
paxci tumenel Ahzinteyutchau ye- 
tel Tzunte-cum, yetel Taxcal, yetel 
Pantemit, Xuchu-cuet, yetel Ytz- 
cuat, yetel Kakaltecat lay u kaba 
uiuicilob : lae muctulob ahmayal 
panob lae. 90. 

§ 9. Laili u katunil uaxac Ahau, 
lai ca binob u pa ah Vlmil Ahau 
tumenel u uahal-uahob yetel ah 
Ytzmal Vlil Ahau ; lae oxlahun uuo 
u katunilob ca paxob tumen Hunac- 
eel : tumenel u oabal u naatob ; uac 
Ahau ca ooci : hunkal haab catac 
can lahun pizi : lai u habil cu 
xinbal. 34. 

§ 10. Vac Ahau, can Ahau, cabil 
Ahau, oxlahun Ahau, buluc Ahau, 
chucuc u luumil ich pa Mayalpan, 
tumenel u pach tulum, tumenel 
multepal ich cah Mayalpan, tumenel 
Ytza uinicob yetel ah Vlmil Ahau 
lae; can kaal haab catac oxppel 
haab : yocol buluc Ahau cuchie 
paxci Mayalpan tumenel ahuitzil 
oul, tan cah Mayalpan. 83. 



§ 11. Vaxac Ahau lay paxci 
Mayalpan lai u katunil uac Ahau, 
can Ahau, cabil Ahau, lai haab cu 
xirabal ca yax mani espanoles u 
yaxilci caa luumi Yucatan tzucubte 
lae, oxkal haab paaxac ich pa 
cuchie. 60. 



§ 8. These are the Katunes 11th, 
9th and 6th Ahau (sic). In the 8th 
Ahau the governor of Chichen-Itza 
was deposed, because he murmured 
disrespectfully against Hunac-eel. 
This happened to Chacxibchac of 
Chichen-Itza, governor of the for- 
tress of Mayapan. Ninety years 
had elapsed, but the 10th year of 
the 8th Ahau was the year in which 
he was overthi'own by Ajzinte-yut- 
chan, with Tzuntecum, Taxcal, 
Pantemit, Xuch-ueuet, Ytzcuat and 
Kakaltecat; these are the names of 
the seven Mayalpanes. Years 90. 

§ 9. In the same Katun of the 
8th Ahau they attacked Chief Ulmil, 
in consequence of his quarrel with 
Ulil, Chief of Yzamal ; thirteen divi- 
sions of troops he had when he was 
routed by Hunac-eel; in the 6th 
Ahau the war was over, after 34 
years. Years 34. 

§ 10. In the 6th Ahau, 4th, 2d, 
13th and 11th Ahau, the fortified 
territory of Mayapan was invaded 
by the men of Itza, under their 
Chief Ulmil, because they had walls, 
and governed in common the peo- 
ple of Mayalpan ; eighty-three 
years elapsed after this event, and 
at the beginning of the 11th Ahau 
Mayalpan was destroyed by stran- 
gers of the Uitzes, Highlanders, as 
was also Tancaj of Mayalpan. 

Years 83. 

§ 11. In the 8th Ahau, Mayalpan 
was destroyed ; the epochs of the 
6th, 4th and 2d Ahau elapsed, and 
at this period the Spaniards for the 
first time arrived, and gave the 
name of Yucatan to this province, 
sixty years after the destruction of 
the fortress. Years 60. 



13 



§ 12. Oxlahun Ahau, buluc Ahau, 
uchci mayacimil ich pa yetel noh- 
kakil : oxlahun Ahau cimci Ahpula : 
uacppel haab u binel ma oococ u 
xocol oxlahun Ahau cuchie, ti 
yanll u xocol haab ti lakin cuchie, 
canil kan cumlahi pop, tu holhun 
Zip catae oxppeli, bolon Ymix u 
kinil lai cimi Ahpula; laitun aSo cu 
xirabal cuchi lae ca oheltabac lay u 
xoc numeroil anos lae 1536 anos 
cuchie, oxkal haab paaxac ich pa 
cuchi lae. 

§ 13. Laili ma oococ u xocol 
buluc Ahau lae lai ulci espanoles 
kul uincob ti lakin u talob ca uliob 



§ 12. The 13th and 11th Ahau, 
pestilence and small pox were in the 
castles. In the 13th Ahau, Chief 
Ajpula died ; six years were want- 
ing to the completion of the 18th 
Ahau ; this year was counted to- 
ward the east of the wheel, and be- 
gan on the 4th "Kan." Ajpula died 
on the 18th day of the month Zip, 
in the 9th Ymix; and that it may 
be known in numbers, it was the 
year 1536, sixty years after the 
destruction of the fortress. 

§ 13. Before the termination of 
the 11th Ahau, the Spaniards ar- 
rived, holy men from the east 



nay tac luumil lae; bolon Ahau came with them when they reached 



hoppci cristianoil uchci caputzihil : 
laili ichil u katunil lae ulci yax 
Obispo Toroba u kaba, heix aiio cu 
ximbal uchie. 1544. 



the land. The 9th Ahau was the 
commencement of baptism and 
Christianity ; and in this year was 
the arrival of Toroba (Toral), the 
first bishop. 1544 A. D. 

ISfOTE.— This Manuscript has also an introduction and close, which 
Seflor Perez has not published, because the dates specified occurred in 
the Spanish epoch, and consequently were of no interest to the Maya 
student. 



HiSTOKY OF THE MaNUSCKIPT. 

In the interest of authenticity it is much to be regretted 
that neither the name of the author, his residence, nor the 
date when the Manuscript was written, are known to us, 
and we are also ignorant of other matters of moment ; 
whether the Manuscript is an original or a copy, or how 
often copied, or by what family or person it may have been 
preserved before it came into the hands of Don Juan Pio 
Perez. That Tucatecan gentleman had retired from Merida, 
the capita], to the District of Peto, to devote himself to 
his favorite studies, the ancient language and the history 
of his nation. The unusual interest that he showed in this 
direction, united to his influential position as first officer of 



14 

tliG district, eiiaLled him to obtain many small raannscript 
documents known to have been written by the natives in 
their vernacular language, the Maya, soon after the time o£ 
the conquest, which, for the most part, contained historical 
reminiscences of the time of the supremacy of their ancestors. 
Among tliese manuscripts there was a so-called Chilain 
Balam Calendar^ which, in the form of an appendix, con- 
tained, besides, the outlines of the primitive history of Yucatan. 
It was, indeed, but a brief epitome of historical events, 
accompanied by the corresponding dates. But its value con- 
sisted in the circumstance that these dates were catalogued 
according to successive epochs; and it required only slight 
inspection to disclose the fact that they extended back to 
a period not very dista'nt from our Christian Era. 

This was a discovery to the learned world as welcome as 
any that could be made. It was unique in its kind. All 
attempts, thus far, had vainly sought to learn something 
about the history of the builders of those palaces and temples 
with whose ruins the peninsula was covered at the date of 
the arrival of the Spaniards, and which pointed to a long 
past and to the unceasing activity of a numberless population, 
which, while it was skilled in the most important branches 
of art and industry, and familiar with a luxury such as only 
ancient Asia and India had displayed, was yet governed by 
a despotic and hierarchical power. The native, when asked 
whose work the ruins were, would answer nothing but 
that they owed their origin, to men who, in ancient times, 
had immigrated from far distant countries. 

The Manuscript disclosed at once the history of these 
strange immigrants, showed the progressive march of the 
conquest, and the contemporaneous foundation of the largest 
cities then in ruins, and furnished in the Maya language 
the chronology of each event and its corresponding epoch. 
By means of his extensive antiquarian knowledge Seiior 
Perez made an exact translation of this Manuscript into 
Spanish, and afterwards undertook a critical interpretation 



: 15 

of its contents, and aoconipanied the whole with an intro- 
dnctory 'explanation of the system of ancient Maya chro- 
nology. 

In the midst of these labors he was surprised by the ar- 
rival of the celebrated American traveller and archaeologist, 
John Lloyd Stephens, and was induced to entrust to him a 
copy of the MSS. and interpretations to be embodied in his 
work on Yucatan, in order to bring them more fully before 
the world. His wishes were scrupulously complied with, 
and the Spanish translation has been rendered into literal 
English by Mr. Stephens in "Incidents of Travel in Yucatan," 
vol. I., Appendix, pages 434-459, and vol. II., Appendix, 
pages 465-469. 

Mr. Albert Gallatin, who, of all American students, has 
made himself most thoroughly acquainted with what remains 
of the historical elements of the Nahuatl and Maya people, 
has brought together the results of his investigations in a 
lecture published in the " Transactions of the American 
Ethnological Society," N'ew York, 1858, vol.1., pages 104 
114. The information therein contained attests an entire 
familiarity with the method pursued by Seiior Ferez in his 
commentary, without, indeed, undertaking any severe criti- 
cism of it. In our opinion Mr. John L. Stephens and Mr. 
Gallatin are the only Americans who have recognized Senor 
Perez's merits in an unequivocal manner, and have brought 
them to the knowledge of the world. 

This is all we could learn about the Manuscript, nor have 
we been able to form a supposition, much less to discover in 
the text itself any clue to the source from which the unknown 
Maya author could have drawn his data. At the end of the 
Manuscript Senor Perez gives his opinion that the whole 
was written from memory, because it must have been done 
long after the the conquest, and after Bishop Landa had 
publicly destroyed much of the historical picture-writing of 
the Mayas by an auto-da-fe^ and because the whole nar- 
ration is so concise and condensed that it appears more like 
an index than a circumstantial description of events. 



16 

These opinions of Seiior Perez might cast a well grounded 
suspicion on the authenticity of the manuscript. We shall 
try to remove such doubts, at once, by presenting the follow- 
ing considerations. We do not believe that Bishop Landa 
succeeded in burning the entire treasures of Maya litera- 
ture at the notorious auto-da-fe in the town of Mani 
in 1561. The authorities* to which we have access describe 
the number of the destroyed objects so precisely that we 
have every reason to confide in their correctness. We read 
of 5,000 idols of different size and form, 13 large altar 
stones, 22 smaller stones, 197 vessels of every form and 
size, and lastly of 27 rolls {sic) on deerskin covered with 
signs and hieroglyphics, given to destruction at that time 
and place. We may believe that the terrorism exercised 
by Bishop Landa had a powerful influence on the minds 
and on the newly converted consciences of the natives, 
and the Bishop no doubt used every possible means to get 
into his hands as much as he could of what he considered 
to be " cabalistic signs and invocations to the devil." But 
we can never believe that these 27 rolls represented the 
entire Maya literature, collected, for hundreds of years 
with the greatest care and held sacred by the natives. 
Such a wholesale destruction would have been an impossi- 
bility. We could refer to a similar occurrence that took 
place in Mexico ; and though Bishop Zumarraga has the 
bad reputation of having destroyed all the picture treasures 
of the Nahuatls by an auto-da-fe^ there were notwithstanding 
so many of them in existence soon after his time in the 
possession of native families that Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, 
and others, were able to buildup their detailed accounts of the 
primitive history of their country from these original sources. 
Possibly numbers of them may have been preserved among 
the Maya tribes, for only under such favorable conditions 
could Oogolludo, Yillagutierre and Lizana have obtained 



*Historia de Yucatan, Eligio Ancona, Merida, 1879, Vol. II., page 78. 



"17 

the valuable information and material which form the chief 
interest of their labors and researches, and which enabled 
also Pio Perez in the year 1835, to discover material from 
which to interpret so complete a description of the system 
of Maya chronology. Nay, even, we have a suspicion that 
Bishop Landa may have laid aside the most important part 
of these records, or what was the most intelligible to him, 
for we cannot comprehend how he would have been able 
without these pictures before his eyes to present in his work 
the symbols for the days so correctly, and also those for the 
months, or how otherwise he could have written his work 
in Spain, so far removed from all sources of information 
and from consultation with the natives. 

No reason, therefore, exists why the Maya author 
should not have remained in possession of some paint- 
ing, which exhibited the annals of his forefathers. If, 
however, he was compelled to write his " Series of 
Xatunes " from memory, there is no reason for not relying 
on the accuracy of his retentive faculties alone. The 
noble Indians, and he belonged undoubtedly to this 
class, were very particular; in training their sons to learn by 
heart songs expressing tlie glorious deeds of their ancestors. 
It is a fact attested by the Spanish chroniclers, that these 
songs were recited publicly in tlie temples and on solemn 
religJbus occasions. They were the only kind of positive 
knowledge with which we know the brains of the Indian 
pupils were burdened. In either case, therefore, the 
accuracy of the written Maya report needs not be doubted, 
at least not on the grounds alleged. Had it been composed 
in the Spanish language instead of Maya, we should have 
viewed this circumstance with a more critical eye. But as 
the native under Spanish rule expressed it in his native lan- 
guage, this kind of loyalty appears to us to give a certain 
warranty of dealing with a man who described the tradi- 
tions of his oppressed race, and who wished to perpetuate its 
memory by handing down to posterity the principal events 
of the past history of his nation. 



18 

At this place, we should not like to omit pointing out 
an interesting suggestion wliieli tlie clear headed and 
sagacious author, Senor Eligio Ancona* made in his before 
mentioned work, that Bishop Landa and the author of the 
Manuscript agree so often in their mention of liistoric dates, 
in tlie manner as well as the matter, as.tolead to the idea that 
both drew their information from tlie same source. What- 
ever be its origin, we agree with the views of Seiior Perez, 
that, in spite of tlie deficiency and breaks occurring in the 
Manuscript, it deserves critical attention as the only docu- 
ment thus far discovered that gives information of the early 
history of Yucatan. 



Elements of Maya Chronology. 

It is impossible to understand tlie Manuscript before 
obtaining a knowledge of the division of time prevalent in 
Yucatan before the Spanisli Conquest. Senor Perez has 
the incontestable merit of having been the first to lay 
before the world not only the chief points of the system 
but also all the technical details. Before his time but little 
was known of Maya chronology. From the great historic 
works of Torquemada, Herrera and Cogolludo, we learn 
only that the Mayas, in conformity with the Mexicans, 
held that the solar year was composed of 360 days, and 
when these were passed they added 6 days more as a correc- 
tion. We are told that both nations divided their years 
into 18 months, and their months into twenty days each. 
As to the longer periods of time, liowever, we hear of 
certain differences. While the Mexicans had an epoch of 



*Historia de Yucatan, Eligio Ancona, Merida, 1879, Vol. I., page 
156. "Landa in Rela9ion de las cosas de Yucatan, § viii., also speaks of the 
tranquillity and good harmony which reigned among the chiefs of those 
cities, and we notice that concerning the epochs referred to, his report 
is in accordance, in many details, with that of the anonymous author 
of the 'Maya Epochs.' " 



19 

52 3'ears which they divided into 4 smaller periods, the so 
called TlqpilU, ea(;h of 13 years, the Mayas counted a great 
epoch of 260 years, the so called Ahau Katun, subdivided 
into 13 smaller periods each of 20 years, with the simple 
name Ahau. This period of 20 years was according to 
Cogolhido* subdivided again into what he calls lustra of 
5 years each, but he does not give the native name of this 
division. 



* Diego Lopez de Cogolludo, Historia de Yuacathan. Madrid, 1683, 
Lib. IV., Cap. 5. " The count they kept in their books was by 20 to 
20 years, and also by lustros of 4 to 4 years. When five of these lustros 
had passed, or twenty years elapsed, they called this time Katun, and 
set one hewn stone (piedra labrada) upon another, well cemented by 
lime and sand. This can be noticed in their temples and ecclesiastical 
buildings, and especially on some ancient walls of our convent in 
Merida, upon which the cells have been built." 

The expression Katun, mentioned in this passage, and to which we 
have assigned a place in our title, requires a few words of explanation. 
As far as we know, it occurs only three times in our Central American 
authors ; in Cogolludo, Landa, and in our manuscript. The first gives 
Katun the meaning of a period of twenty years. The second (§ XLI.), 
uses the following phraseology: " Contando XIII. veyntes con una de 
las XX. letras de Ips meses que llaman Ahau, sin orden, sino retrue- 
candolos como pareceran en las.siguiente raya redonda, llaman les a estos 
en su lengua Katunes." This phraseology is somewhat obscure, never- 
theless it will be admitted that his intention was to state that each of 
the images of the thirteen Ahaues, depicted on tlie surface of the wheel, 
represented twenty years, this being a period which they also called 
Katunes. We arrive at this definite conclusion by the consideration 
that if Landa says that the period of twenty years was called Ahau, and 
another one, that of 2G0 years, Katun, he would have stated the latter 
fact in expressive words; the occasion for doing so being too urgent to 
let it pass. The third author uses the word Katun in his introductory 
lines, without giving it any numerical value. But it will be noticed 
that in the text which follows, the expression Katun is used inter- 
changeably with that of Ahau for a period of 20 years. This concord- 
ance of the three authors allows us to conclude that whenever the word 
Katun is employed, the short period of 20 yeai's was meant. In this 
connection a question arises : How is it that no author has made men- 
tion of the long period of 2G0 years, with which we become acquainted 
in Seiior Perez's chronological essay. It is probable he found it men- 
tioned in some Maya manuscripts in which this long period appeared 
under the name of Ahau Katun. Though this fact of itself maybe con- 
4 



20 

The discovery of the Manuscript, no doubt, induced 
Seiior Perez to make a systematic and detailed sketch of 
the early native chronolgy of liis country. We shall men- 
tion only the most interesting and important of his details 
and refer the reader for the rest to Stephens' work already 
mentioned. The names of the 20 days, in the month are as 
follows : — 



1 Kan. 


6 Muluc. 


11 Gix. 


='16 Cavac. 


2 Chicchan. 


7 Oc. 


12 Men. 


m Al;iau. 


3 Quimij. 


8 Chuen. 


13 Quib. 


^18 Ymix. 


4 Manik. 


9 Eb. 


114 Caban. 


819 Yx. 


5 Lamat. 


10 Been. 


H5 Edzuab. 


^20 Akbal. 



sidered of no importance, still, as it would bring to light another of the 
many numerical combinations (13X20=260) in which those people in- 
dulged, with the fundamental figures of their calendar system, we 
must feel a great interest in the asserted fact, hoping it will turn 
out to be a correct statement. Our researches have been directed for a 
long time towards the discovery of the symbols which the Maya an- 
nalists or sculptors would have employed for their chronological periods. 
It was in connection with these studies that we discovered the 
Nahuatl symbols for the same, of which we gave account in our discussion 
on the Calendar Stone. Yet while this discovery only corroborates the 
suspicion long entertained that a certain set of Maya symbols repi-e- 
sented the lustra of 5, and another the period of 20 years, we have 
not yet been able to recognize a Maya symbol for the period of 260 
years. 

The word Katun is a compound of Kat, to ask, to consult, and tun, 
stone ; hence the stone, which when asked, gives account. Thus it was 
also understood by Cogolludo, who, when mentioning the word Katun 
(see above), was referring to the square stones iucrusted into walls, 
upon which the convent was built. What traditions he followed in this 
is still better illustrated by the words in continuation of this passage : 
" In a place called Tixualahtun, which means a spot where one hewn 
stone is set upon another one, the Archives of the Indians are said to 
have existed, to which they resorted for all questions of historical 
interest (recurso de todos los acaecimientos), as we should do to 
Simancas, in Spain." The stone columns found on the spot named, 
can be seen pictured in J. L. Stephens' Incidents of travel in Yucatan, 
Vol. II., page 318. 



21 

The 18 months were as follows : — 



1 Pop (16tli of July.) 

2 Uoo (5th of August). 

3 Zip (25th of August). 

4 Zodz (14th of September. 

5 Zeec (4th of October). 

6 Xul (24th of October). 

7 Dze-yaxkin (ISthofiSTovember). 

8 Mol (3d of December). 

9 Dcheu (23d of December). 



10 Yaax (12th of January). 

11 Zac (1st of February). 

12 Quej (21st of February). 

13 Mac (13th of March). 

14 Kaukin (2d of April). 

15 Moaa (22d of April). 

16 Pax (12th of May). 

17 Kayab (1st of June). 

18 Cumku (21st of June. 



As the table shows their year began witli the first day of 
the month Pop, which corresponded to the 16th of July in our 
calendar, when, as Senor Perez observes, the sun was almost 
vertical over the Peninsula. The day itself was called 
Kin, Sun, the month U, Moon, and the 5 intercalary days 
were called nameless days, Xona-Kaha-Kia, not-name-Sun. 

In the arrangement of their yearly calendar the Mayas 
proceeded as follows : Like the Mexicans they used a com- 
bination of the numbers 1 to 13, with the names of the 20 
days of the month. Thej' called the first day of the month 
Pop (our 16 July) 1 Kan, the second 2 Chicchan, the third 
3 Quimij, and so on. The fourteenth day was called 1 
Caban, the fifteenth 2 Edznab, and the last or twentieth day 
7 Akbal. The first day of the second month followed in 
correct numerical sequence with the name 8 Kan, the second 
with the name 9 Chicchan. Tlius repeating the 20 names of 
the days with the above combination of numbers from 1 to 
13 they reached the 360th day with the name 9 Akbal. 
Then followed the intercalary week of 5 days bearing the 
names 10 Kan, 11 Chicchan, 12 Cimij, 13 Manik, and 1 
Lamat. 

The second year begins with 2 Muluc. In the same man- 
ner going on with the combination the first day of the third 
year was 3 Hix, then followed 4 Cavac, 9 Kan, 10 Muluc, 11 
Hix, 12 Cavac, 13 Kan, 1 Muluc, 2 Hix, and so on. At the 
end of the 52d year the above-mentioned combination was ex- 



22 

liansted, for the 53d year began again with the day 1 
Kan. 



«M 2 








a 


















-4J 

c3 


cu 6 
o o 








"o 




si 

cl 


c3 


3 * 


a 

53 


(3 
CS 
O 


sj c4 S 


^ 


Ph P 


N N 


N 


M P 


S 


Q 


^ 


N 


o» g 


w 


s 


Ph « O 


Names of the 
























Days. 


1 2 


3 4 


5 


6 7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 13 


14 


16 


in 17 18 


Kan, 


] 8 


2 9 


3 


10 4 


11 


5 


12 


6 


13 7 


1 


8 


2 9 3 


Chicchan, 


2 9 


3 10 


4 


11 5 


12 


6 


13 


7 


1 8 


2 


9 


3 10 4 


Qiiimij, 


3 10 


4 11 


5 


12 6 


13 


7 


.1 


8 


2 9 


3 


10 


4 11 5 


Manik, 


4 11 


5 12 


6 


13 7 


1 


8 


2 


9 


3 10 


4 


11 


5 12 6 


Lamat, 


5 12 


6 13 


7 


1 8 


2 


9 


3 


10 


4 11 


5 


12 


6 13 7 


Muliic, 


6 13 


7 1 


8 


2 9 


3 


10 


4 


11 


5 12 


6 


13 


7 1 8 


Oc, 


7 1 


8 2 


9 


3 10 


4 


11 


5 


12 


6 13 


7 


1 


8 2 9 


Chuen, 


8 2 


9 3 


10 


4 11 


6 


12 


6 


13 


7 1 


8 


2 


9 3 10 


Eb, 


9 3 


10 4 


11 


5 12 


6 


13 


7 


1 


8 2 


9 


3 


10 4 11 


Been, 


10 4 


11 5 


12 


6 13 


7 


1 


8 


2 


9 3 


10 


4 


11 5 12 


Gix, 


11 5 


12 6 


13 


7 1 


8 


2 


9 


3 


10 4 


11 


5 


12 6 13 


Men, 


12 6 


13 7 


1 


8 ^ 


9 


3 


10 


4 


ir 6 


12 


6 


13 7 1 


Quib, 


13 7 


1 8 


2 


9 3 


10 


4 


Jl 


5 


12 6 


13 


7 


1 8 2 


Caban, 


1 8 


2 9 


3 


10 4 


11 


5 


12 


6 


13 7 


1 


8 


2 9 3 


Edznab, 


2 9 


3 10 


4 


11 5 


12 


6 


13 


7 


i 8 


2 


9 


3 10 4 


Cavac, 


3 10 


4 11 


5 


12 6 


13 


7 


1 


8 


2 9 


3 


10 


4 11 5 


Ahau, 


4 11 


5 12 


6 


13 7 


1 


8 


2 


§ 


3 10 


4 


11 


5 12 6 


Ymix, 


6 12 


6 13 


7 


1 8 


2 


9 


3 


10 


4 11 


5 


12 


6 13 7 


Yk, 


6 13 


7 1 


8 


2 9 


3 


10 


4 


11 


5 12 


6 


13 


7 18 


Akbal, 


7 1 


8 2 


9 


3 10 


4 


11 


5 


12 


6 13 


7 


1 


8 2 9 



The following year must begin with 2 Miiluc. 



^ ^ I Chicchan 
%^ i Quimij . 
o -o I Manik 
Pe] ^ [ Lamat 



10 
11 
12 
13 
1 



It is to be observed here that this arrangement of a 
calendar of epochs agrees with that in use in the interior of 
Mexico. There, the numbers from 1 to 13 were combined 
with four names, Tecpatl, Calli, Tochtli and Acatl, which 
they had taken, like the Mayas, from the names for the 20 
days of the month ; and both calendars represent the first 
days of their weeks of five days as occurring upon the Ist, 
6th, 11th and 16th days of the month. From this system 



23 

Senor Perez arrives at the division into great epochs of 52 
years used in Mexico as well as in Yucatan, Tliis statement 
appears hazardous in the highest degree v^hen compared 
with the statements made by the before-mentioned authori- 
ties. They claim for Yucatan an epoch of 20 and 260 years 
respectively ; and Landa, who wrote with the first impres- 
sions of the conquest still fresh in his mind, and whose 
information came directly from the natives themselves, 
agrees with them. Without doubt Senor Perez must have 
been aware of this contradiction. After he had developed 
in § 7 the so-called epoch of the Mayas of 52 years he 
makes us acquainted with this national Maya epoch, though, 
as we shall presently learn, he disagrees with the Maya 
writers as to the time of its duration. His statement is : § 8. 
" The Yucatecans, besides the great cycle of 52 years, 
employed still another great cycle, which had refer- 
ence to certain portions of it, in order to date the main 
epoch, and the most notable events of their history. Each 
of these cycles contained 13 periods, of 24 years each, mak- 
ing together 312 years. Each period, or Aliau- Katun ^r2J^ 
divided into two parts. The first of these parts of 20 years 
w^as enclosed in a square (m'c), and was called on that ac- 
count aonaytun, lamaytt or lamaytun. The second part 
of 4 years formed, so to speak, a pedestal for the first part, 
and was called chek oc JTattm, or lath oc Katun^ which 
signifies a chair or pedestal. These years were considered 
intercalary, and were held to be unlucky years. They were 
called u yail Jaab, and the same was the case with the 5 
intercalary days to which they corresponded. The separa- 
tion of the 20 years from the following 4 years gave rise to 
the erroneous idea that the Ahaues consisted of twenty 
years only, an error which has prevailed almost universally 
among those who have written upon this subject. But if 
they had counted the years which compose a period, and 
had taken notice of the positive declarations of the manu- 
script to the efi^ect that the Ahaues consisted of 24 years 



24 

divided as above, stated, the}' vj^ould not have misled their 
readers on this point." 

Senor Perez continues : — 

" It is an incontrovertible fact that those Maya periods, 
epochs or ages, took their name from Ahau Katun^ioY they 
began to be counted from the day w^hich bore the name 
Ahau, the second day of those years, which began with the 
name Cavac. But as these days and numbers were taken 
from years which had run their course, the periods of 24 
years could never maintain an arithmetical order, but suc- 
ceeded each other according to the following arrangement 
of numbers : 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2. As the 
Indians considered the number 13 the initial number, it is 
probable that some remarkable event had happened in that 
year, because, when the Spaniards arrived in the Peninsula, 
the Indians then counted the 8th as the 1st, that being the 
date at which their ancestors came to settle there ; and an 
Indian writer proposed that they should abandon that order 
also, and begin counting from the 11th, solely because the 
Conquest had happened in that Ahau. Now, if the 13th 
Ahau Katun began on a second day of the year, it must be 
that year which began on 12 Cavac, and the 12th of tlie 
series. The 11th Ahau would commence in the year of 10 
Cavac, which occurred after a period of 24 years, and so on 
with the rest ; taking notice that after the lapse of years we 
come to the respective number marked in the course of the 
Ahaues which is placed first ; proving that they consisted of 
24, and not, as some have believed, of 20 years." 

From the heading (§ 8), " Of the Great Cycle of 312 
years, or Ahau Katunes^'' as well as of the text just quoted, 
it is apparent that Senor Perez intended to establish the 
fact that the ancient Maya cycles were composed of 24 and 
312 years respectively. He does so in manifest contra- 
diction to the prevalent opinion that they consisted of 20 
and 260 years. We do not understand the reasons why 
he should have come to this conclusion. It grew out 



25 

neither from the facts alleged nor from the connection into 
which he wove them together. The peculiar circumstance 
of having, in his commentary references, four j'ears inter- 
calated in succession to the usual cycle of twenty years, and 
included in a square, to serve as a ^'•pedestal " to the former, 
is not capable of shedding new light upon the question and 
causing us to distrust authorities on which we were accustomed 
to rely. The other reason, which stands second in his order of 
forming premises for his conclusion, is said to be the undeni- 
able fact, that those periods took their name olAhau Katun^ 
because they began to be counted from the day Ahau, which 
was the second day of tliose years that began in Cavac. 
Of this nncontrovertible fact the readers are not elsewhere 
informed. The information, however, which we are able to 
give is that according to all we have been able to gather on 
the Maya Calendar, a period, or a single year, commencing 
with a day named Ahau, has never existed in their system 
of counting. They always commenced it with the words 
ICah, Muluc, Ilix, Cavac. If there existed any exceptional 
ground for changing an old established method of dating, 
the reason should have been stated, for it is preposterous to 
assume that the first day of a great cyclical period should 
have taken its name from any other day of the year's calen- 
dar than from the four above named. Nor do we under- 
stand the reason whj^ just here, the topic of the succession 
of the numbers 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, was 
introduced. Could it have been with the intention of show- 
ing that this singular enumeration of alternating Ahaues^ 
which we shall hereafter speak of, occurred only in cycles 
of 24 years, and that therefrom a proof might be derived 
for establishing the pretended cycle of 24 and 312 years? 
Evidence of this should have been given by a table showing 
the series, and by still another table in which should be 
shown, that such an alternating succession did not occur in 
cycles composed of 20 years. Not one single fact can be 



26 

detected in Senor Perez's text, by wliich the long estab- 
lished assumption 'of a 20 years' cycle has been disproved. 

Nevertheless, the data which we possess of the ancient 
Maya Calendar are not so complete as to disprove emphati- 
cally that a cycle of 24 and 312 years respectively was 
never used by the Maya chronologers. 

Without doubt, Yucatan owed its ancient greatness to the 
success of uniting a rude and scattered population around a 
number of theocratical centres, where similar forms of 
worship were maintained. Though the ancient records are 
wanting, this feature of the Maya system stands out upon 
the background of dim traditions with great distinctness. 
After this concentration of tribes, and with the view of 
regulating worship, a uniform calendar would have been 
introduced, the main features of which would probably have 
been a solar year of 365 days, the division of the year into 
20 months, and a cyclical period of 20 and 260 years respec- 
tively. In the middle of the 11th century great tribal 
revolutions took place on the high plateaus of Anahuac, 
by which the lowlands of Yucatan were also affected. An 
adventurous tribe of the Nahuatl stock possessed itself of 
one of the principal towns of Yucatan and established its 
influence and power. Mayapan became the centre of 
Nahuatl worship. The calendar the invaders brought 
with them must have been the old honored division of the 
years into 365 days, with 20 months, and their cyclical 
period of not 20 but 52 years, and it is also known that about 
the year 1450, the political union of the Mayas was broken 
into several smaller divisions, some of which presumably 
would have held to the ancient cycle of 20 years ; others 
may have adopted the Nahuatl cycle of 52 years, and possi- 
bly, may have introduced the cycle of 24 years spoken of by 
Senor Perez. Political schism was likely to have generated 
also a hierarchical one, and eacli newly formed body of 
priests, in whose hands the custody and composition of annals 
fell, would have sought to distinguish themselves from their 



* 27 ■ 

predecessors by innovations, if only of a formal character. 
Such changes we also observe among the ISTahuatls in 
Anahuac. The period of 52 years, however, seems to have 
constantly prevailed among them, and also the divisions of 
the 365 days into 18 months of 20 days each. 

We find, for instance, that one of the Nalmatl tribes 
begins its annals with December 9, another selects 
December 26, another January 9, and others January 12,. 
February 4, and February 22. We also know that a 
different calculation prevailed among these tribes in begin- 
ning their annals. The State of Colhuacan began its 
chronology with a year 1 Calli, the State of Mexico with 
2 Acatl, others with 1 Tochtli, and seemingly the most 
ancient calculation began with the year 1 Tecpatl. Thus 
we have a historical basis for our assertion that the ISTahuatl 
as well as the Maya tribes did not conform to a uniform 
rule in beginning their first year's date, in their chrono- 
logical epochs, or in the division of their cyclical epochs. 

Tn spite of tliis diversity, so perplexing to modern chrono- 
logists, the Aztecs and the Mayas were both governed by 
the same general principle in arranging their calendars. 
Both nations recognized the fact that in the past their solar 
year had numbered only 360 days ; and they preserved in 
the words nemotemi and xona-kaba-kin, the remembrance 
of a not to be forgotten effort exerted by their ancestors to 
correct the primordial solar year of 360 days into one of 365 
days. Both nations conscientiously kept on dividing the year 
into 18 months, and each of the months into 20 days, and 
with both the number 13 returns as a basis governing the 
calendar of years as well as that of periods.* 

We notice, moreover, that both nations omit to count the 
20 days of the month in the succession of the figures 1-20, 

* Senor Orozco y Berra, the learned and laborious author of the "Carta 
ethnograflca de Mexico, Mexico, 1864," has made this matter a sub- 
ject of special investigation in "Anales del Museo Nacional de Mexico," 
1879, Tom. I., Entrega 7, page 305. 
5 



28 

but after the thirteenth day tliey again begin with the nnm- 
ber 1, and the 20th day therefore was figured with the 
number 7, and also tliat the Mexicans counted their smallest 
period with 13 years, the so-called tlapilli, and upon its 
quadruple the cycle of 52 years was based. The lesser 
Maya or Ahau period is 20 years, while the greater or 
Ahau Katun is 260 years or 13 times the smaller. Senor 
Perez's lesser period of 24, and the greater one of 312 
years show the same method and calculation (13X24=312). 

This conformity between the early calendars of Central 
America should not escape the observation of the future 
historical enquirer. He will be compelled to adopt a 
very remote period of time when both nations, differing 
so entirely in their language, dwelt in peace, connected 
by the strong bands of a hierarchical power. One of these two 
nations, it is clear, must have invented it. Hence the 
question arises, was it original with the immigrating 
Nahuatl tribes who came from the higher northern coun- 
tries as is reported, and did they succeed in forming 
such a consolidation with the Maya races as to mingle both 
under the same hierarchical government, or did the contrary 
take place ? The most prevalent opinion makes the ISTahuas 
the inventors of the general system of chronology, but later 
students begin to express themselves in favor of its Maya 
origin. On a more fitting occasion we are desirous to 
present our reasons for taking the latter view. 

Before passing from these chronological speculations to 
the discussion of the Maya Manuscript, we wish to state 
briefly our idea of the origin of the system of reckoning 
by alternating Ahaues. [See page 24]. We promised to 
return to this subject, and shall now endeavor to give 
a solution to this chronological problem differing from 
that of Seiior Perez. A passage in Bishop Landa's work, 
determined our decision. After a previous and positive 
assertion that the lesser Ahau period consisted of 20 years, 
Landa continues, .... " The order in which they com- 



29 

puted their dates and made their prophecies by the aid of this 
computation (of 20 years) was arrived at by having two 
idols, dedicated to two of these characters (Ahaues). To 
the first idol, which stands with a cross marked above the 
circle, they paid homage by making him offerings and sacri- 
fices, in order to obtain an immnnity from the calamities to 
come in these 20 years, but after ten of these years had passed 
they ofifered nothing but incense and worship. When the 
twenty years of the first were fully passed they began to 

^^ 




AHAU KATUN. 

[Above we give a reproduction of a Maya Aliau Katun wheel taken 
from that in Landa's " Las cosas de Yucatan," § XL., in order that his 
explanation may be understood]. 



30 

occupy thenipelves with the presages of their second idol and 
to offer sacrifices to him, having taken away their first idol to 
replace it by the second, in order to worship it in the coming 
ten years."* 

" Tlie Indians say, for example, that the Spaniards arrived 
at tlie City of Merida in the year of tlie nativity of onr Lord 
and Master 1541, which was precisely tlie first 3'ear of Biiluc 
A.hau (11 Ahau), the same that we find ])laced at the top of 
the instrumentt below the cross, and which also indicates that 
they arrived in tlie month Poj)^ which is the first in their year. 
Had the Spaniards not come as they did, then they would 
have placed the Idol of Bolon Ahau (9 Ahau), offering 
homage to it, and continuing to refer to the prognostics of 
Jiultic AAazi, till the year 1561; and then they would take 
it from the temple and put in its place that of Vuc Ahau 
(7 Ahau), all the while continuing to refer to the progJios- 
tics of Buluc. Ahau, for ten ^-ears more, and the same with 
the others until the tour was made. In this way they made 
up their Katuns of twenty and ten years, worshipping them 
according to their superstitions and juggleries, which were in 
such great numbers that there were more than enough to 
deceive that simple people, and there is reason for aston- 
isliment when one knows what kind of things in nature and 
experience belong to the Demon." 

Whoever is acquainted with the awkwardness and literary 
negligence of Landa's writing will not be astonished that in 



♦Las cosas de Yucatan, Diego de Lancia. Edition B. deBourboiirg. 
Paris, 1864. Page 315, § XL. 

t A specimen of such an instrument with a surface inscribed as the 
cut shows would hardly have been preserved. We think that the box en- 
closed around disk turning on a pivot; this contrivance, evidently 
served as an aid to the memory in enumerating the alternating Ahaues. 
To-day, we should obtain the same result by writing the Ahaues in a 
horizontal or vertical line, but the Nahuatls and Mayas, having solely a 
symbolical or pictorial manner of representation, made use of this ingeni- 
ous arrangement by painting the series of the Ahaues on the circum- 
ference of a circle. Thus the idea of an uninterrupted sequence of time 
and the connection of the 2d Ahau with the 13th were brouaht to notice. 



31 

his statement \\e left out something which a more careful 
writer would have expressed, and placed at the head of his 
explanation. The wanting statement, however, can be sup- 
plied. It will be noticed that Landa in his text only refers to 
two Ahau-Idols worshipped in the temple. But this number 
must have been 13, as is evident from the 3d Idol Vice 
Ahau, mentioned afterwards in the statement with which he 
finished his description, in order not to always repeat the same 
thing of the ten other idols which are painted on the wheel. 
Let us then take the statement of Landa snpplemented by 
what we have said above as to the questionable nomencla- 
ture of these Ahaues as they appear in the row of numbers 
13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2. Landa's description 
gives us to understand that the lapse of twenty years was 
always required before the new" combination of two idols 
was presented to the worshippers, and which had not before 
been seen in the temple in company with the former Idols. 
For example : When Idol 3 was placed in the temple, Idol 

2 took a first place among the worshippers. Indeed, Idol 2 
was in the temple with Idol 1, but Idol 3 was not with Idol 
1, nor Idol 4 with Idol 2. If such a combination repeat- 
ing itself after 20 years, represented a space of time familiar 
to the Mayas, it is natural that it should receive the name 
Ahau or period of the god* and that it should receive its 
name from the number of the Idol presiding at the expira- 
tion of this space of 20 years. If therefore in the rotation 
of the circle Idols 2 and 3 passed out of the temple, the 
combination, or what is the same, the space of 20 years, 
during which they had ornamented the temple will have 
borne the name 2 Ahau, on the ground that Idol 2 had pre- 

* Ahau translated means : soverain, king, august, principal. See page 

3 of Juan Pio Perez's " Diccionario de la lengua Maya," published in 
Merida in 1877, by the friends and faithful executors of the last will of 
the defunct scholar. This valuable work comprises the whole of the lin- 
guistical stock of the Maya language, the words collected exceeding the 
number of 20,000, on 437 pages, quarto. It may be purchased from Dr. 
George E. Shiels, 896 Broadway, New York. 



32 

ceded it. The second combination, then, would follow 
when the presidency of Idol 4 would have finished its term, 
and in tliis way the row 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 
13, may have had its origin. 

Now, it is true that the order in which these numbers 
stand is different from that transmitted to us, which begins with 
13 and is followed by 11 and 9. The reverse of this method of 
reckoning may possibly be accounted for in this way : An 
epoch unknown to us may have occurred when the Maya 
chroniclers desired to review past events and bring them 
into order. Counting backwards from such a date they 
would have called the first period of twenty years not the 
13th, nor, according to our above statement, the 1st, but the 
2d Ahau. Consequently the period after the expiration of 
the great cycles of 260 years would have been called the 
13th Ahau, though properly speaking it should have been 
the 2d Ahau. An historical epoch for such reckoning back- 
ward is known to have occurred. It occurred again in the 
year 1542, when the conquest of Yucatan by the Spaniards 
took place. It appears that the Mayas in that year declared 
their 13th Ahau period to be at an end, from 1522 to 1542 ; 
consequently a back reckoning, according to this system of 
the Maj-^as, gave a 2d Ahau for the period of 1502-22, a 
4th Ahau for that of 1482-1502, and going on in the 
same way of reckoning the year 1282 would have represented 
the expiration of the 13th Ahau. 

The circle of Landa exemplifies this manner of counting. 
He starts from the 13th Aliau, counting from left to right. 
But if we count in the opposite direction we should obtain 
the row of numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, &c., as we have shown above. 
If we refer to the striking discovery on the Mexican Calen- 
dar stone* that the days upon that circle are not counted 



*Proceeclings of Am. Antiq. Society, April 24, 1878, page 16, iu an 
article on the Mexican Calendar Stone, by Ph. J. J. Valeutini, in which 
mention was made of this singular kind of notation from the right to 
the lefthand. A. v. Humboldt, in "Vue des Cordilleres," page 186, re- 



33 

towards the right but towards the left, and generalize it as a 
rule to be adopted also for the chronological C3'cles of the 
Mayas, we should come to the conclusion that the Mayas in 
some of their former chronological epochs counted their 
Ahaues in tliat natural order. Who shall say tliat tlie 
reversed counting did not originate from a misunderstanding 
on the part of the Spaniards ? We do not claim to have 
finally disposed of the question. Every new attempt, will 
be a welcome addition to the cause, for each new investiga- 
tor is obliged to descend deeper into the dark mine where 
Maya history lies buried. 



SeSok Perez's Translation of the Manuscript. 

Seiior Perez is thus far the only interpreter of the Maya 
Manuscript, and his Spanish text found a skilful translator 
in Mr. John L. Stephens, l^either the Spanish text nor the 
special chronological analysis of each paragraph composed 
by Sefi-or Perez, have hitherto been made public ; we owe 
the possession of both these documents to the kindness of 
our friend. Dr. Carl Hermann Berendt, lately deceased, who, 
during his long residence in Yucatan, was occupied in amass- 
ing a large collection of matters relating to Maya literature 
and history, in original form or in authentic copies. In 
comparing the Spanish with the English translations, 
it seems that many things, not clear in the first, had 
been made more intelligible in the last. It is evident 
that Sefior Perez sought to translate the Maya text as liter- 



marks : Le cercle interieur offre les viugt signes du jour : en se souve- 
nant que Cipactli est le premier et Xochitl le dernier, on voit qu'gu'ici, 
comme partout ailleiirs, les Mexicains out range les hieroglyphs de droite 
a gauche." The great scholar has clothed in the form of a proven state- 
ment that which at the beginning of this century was an opinion gen- 
erally prevalent among Americanists, and which does not bear the test, 
when the numerous copies existing of the Mexican calendar days are 
examined. They all show the arrangement of the days from the left to 
the right. The sculptured calendar is the only exception. 



34 

ally and faitlifnllj as lie could into the Spanish language, 
otherwise his text would have been more fluent and finished. 
Tlie abruptness of expression, and the frequent ellipses in 
the construction of its sentences, show that the Maja idiom 
has been faithfully rendered. Such a course increases the 
interest, and at the same time it creates confidence in the 
correctness of the translation. Dr. Berendt, the profound 
scholar of the Maya language, wrote us as follows on March 
14, 1873 : " I have several times undertaken to translate 
this manuscript myself, but have always given up the task. 
The manifold doubts which the original text leaves open 
seem to me correctly solved by Senor Perez, and it always 
appeared to me that I might indeed make another but not a 
better translation. The small changes in the text of Ste- 
phens, of which you speak, I do not believe were introduced 
merely from a love of his own expressions. I believe that 
he first came to an understanding with Perez, and sought 
only to assist the better comprehension of the manuscript 
for the benefit of the public at large," 

It is to be hoped that the diff'erences of translation of the 
manuscript spoken of above, and to which Seiior Eligio 
Ancona* draws attention, will be critically investigated and 
finally decided by the coming generation of scholars in Yu- 
catan. The sons of the country should be the born judges 
of the language and the spirit of the literary relics of the 
indigenous race. Recent investigations have shown that 
this language was split into sixteen dialects, which were 
spoken by as many tribes, whose territories extended far be- 
yond the present area of the Yucatecan peninsula.f Like all 
languages, these Maya idioms have undergone changes dur- 
ina: the last three or four centuries. To understand and 



*Historia de Yucatan; by Eligio Ancona, Merida, 1879, Vol. I., page 
159. 

t Eemarks on the Centres of Ancient Civilization in Centi-al America. 
Address read before the Amer. Geogr. Society, New York, July 10, 1876, 
by Dr. C. Hermann Berendt. 



35 

explain their now obsolete elements, naust be left exclusively 
to the native scholar. 



DiSOTJSSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT. 

It will now be our task to endeavor to clear away such 
doubts as may arise in regard to the chronological interpre- 
tation of the Maya Manuscript. These doubts have refer- 
ence, first, to the choice of the method to be pursued in 
reckoning the Ahaues either at 24 or at 20 years. Second, 
as to the manner of filling up certain gaps which the author 
has left open in the chronological sequence of the Ahau 
period.; and finally, after building again this chronological 
structure in its logical order, we must adapt the dates 
expressed in Ahaues to the current language of our 
Christian chronological era. 

In order to avoid troublesome reference to the text of the 
preceding pages, we shall repeat the English translation, and 
for better convenience, shall present two or more sections 
together. To demonstrate Seuor Perez's system and method 
of counthig, -we shall give the translation of the Spanish 
text, as communicated by Dr. Berendt, without undertaking 
to make any special criticisms of it. 

This is the. series of Katuns that elapsed from the time 
of their separation from the land and house of JYonoual, 
in lohich loere the four Tutul Xiu, lyiiig to the loest of 
Zuina, going out of the country of Tulapan. 

With these few words the Maya author states his purpose. 
He wishes to enumerate the Katuns or periods of time from 
the beginning of the history of his nation to the arrival of 
the Spanish conquerors. He tells us that his nation lived 
in aland called Tulapan, which was westerly from another 
called Zuina, and that from thence, under the lead of four 
chiefs, the Tutul Xiu, they had immigrated into this new 
country, Yucatan. 
6 



36 




[Map showing the movemeut of the Mayas as stated iu the Manuscript]. 

By Tutul Xiu the antlior evidently means the name of the 
reigning family, which, at the arrival of the Spaniards, were 
considered as the ancient rulers and hereditary lords of 
Chichen-Itza.* In regard to the countries referred to by 
the names Tulapan and Zuina, we can only say that in Cen- 
tral American traditions the name Tulapan oftentimes re- 



* Herrera, Decade IV., Lib. X., Chapt. 2, 3 and 4. These three chap- 
ters are a compilation of data concerning the ancient history of Yucatan, 
and the adventurous career of the Itza race, which appear to be drawn 
from sources unlinown at this day, and which are independenfof what 
we can learn from Landa, from the author of the Maya Manuscript, 
and from CogoUudo. 



37 

turns under tlie form of Tulan. Thus, for example, the 
Quiches and Cakchiqueles, sister nations of tlie Mayas, make 
mention of the'above countries in their annals.* Upon a 
closer examination of the text, contained in the so-called 
" Popol Yuh," we were unable to detect any grounds for 
the assumption that these countries or places lay in a distant 
orient. They probably will turn out to have been, or by 
the annalists were thought to have been, situated on the 
northern boundaries of Mexico, on a route of migration 
ending with the high plateaus of Guatemala. 

|1. Four epochs loere spent in travelling before they ar- 
rived here with Holoa Chantepeuh and his followers. When 
they began their journey towards this island, it was the 8th 
Ahau, and the 6th, 4cth and 2d icere spent in travelling, 
hecoAcse in the 1st year of the 13th Ahau they arrived at 
this island, making together eighty-one years they were trav- 
elling betioeen their departure from their country and their 
arrival at this island of Chacnouitan. These are 81 years. 

We learn that four Ahau periods had passed the 8th, 6th, 
4:th and 2d before the wanderers arrived with their leader, 
Holon Chantepeuh, at the island of Chacnouitan. In the 
followino; 13th Ahau thev are said to have been already settled 
there. It is of the highest importance to note that the Maya 
author here acknowledges that he, reckoned each Ahau period 
as 20 years, and he remains faithful to this method to the end 
of the manuscript. By this fact alone, we should be com- 
pelled to follow the division of 20 years thus established, 
even if in contradiction to the statements of other chron- 
iclers, which fortunately is not the case. 



* Traces of such a migratiou aud succeeding halting places can be 
discovered iu the Quiche aunals, edited by Brasseur de Bourbourg, with 
the title ot Popol Yuh. " Popol Vuh, le livre sacre.et les aiythes de I'aD- 
tiquite centro-Americaine," Paris, 1861, on pages 83, 235, 241, and pages 
215, 217, 236, in which names are quoted and regions described which 
give evidence of a course of migration from northern to southern 
Mexico. 



38 

As the author treats of the affairs of the Tutnl Xia or 
the so-called Itza race, and attributes to them the discovery 
and colonization of Yucatan, it is highly probable that he 
made use of tlie annals of the Itzaes, and that they were 
arranged in periods of just 20 years. If we should be right 
in this assumption the 20-year period- must be regarded as 
the most ancient ever used in Yucatan. 

Wc cannot fully agree with Seiior Perez and his country- 
men that the author intended to designate the peninsula of 
Yucatan when he speaks of the Island of Chacnouitan. 
This name appears for the first and only time in this manu- 
script. It is generally acknowledged that tlie name had 
never previously been heard of.* We should state that the 
words of the text are always nay ti j)ete7ie Chacnouitan. If 
in Maya^je^en meant only a peninsula, we should take no 
exceptions. But the fundamental meaning of pete7i is an 
island, and as the demonstrative pronoun nay means as well 
"of this place" as "of that place," the translation could as well 
stand for "that distant island." Whether the island was situ- 
ated in the ocean or in any of the many inland lakes, the pro- 
babilities seem to lie with the latter supposition, for they 
came by land. Had they come by sea, tradition would have 
dwelt with some characteristic remark upon such an ex- 
ceptional case. From the following paragraph it will become 
still more evident that the Chacnouitan discovered by the 
Itzaes was neither the whole nor the northern part of Yuca- 



* E. Ancona, Historia de Yucatan, Vol. I., page 34. Merida, 1879. — 
"The word Chacnovitau or Chacnouitan first appeared in the Maya 
MSS. or series of Maya epochs. Upon examining this document, and 
observing tliat the tribe wandered from Tulapan to Chacnouitan 
and later to Baklialal and from there to Chichen-Itza, etc., it will be 
understood that the name in question was given to no other portion of 
our peninsula than to that which lies at the south. Brasseur de Bour- 
bourg supposes, and we think not without reason, that Chacnouitan lay 
between Bakhalal and Acallan, s. e. of the Laguua delosTerminos. — See 
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Archives de la comission scientifica, Tomo. I, 
page 422, note 2." 



39 

tan, but a district situated in the southwest of the penin- 
sula. 

§2. The ^t/iAhau, the %th Ahau,in the '•2d Ahau arrived 
Ajmekat Tntxd Xixi^ and ninety-nine years they remained 
in Chacnouitan — years 99. 

§3. In this time also took place the discovery of the Prov- 
ince of Ziyan-caan or Bacalar ; the Mh Ahatt and the ^d 
Ahau and the Idth Ahem, or sixty years they Jiadrrrded in 
Ziyan-caan when thev came here. During these years of 
their government of the Province of Bacalar occurred the 
discovery of the Province of Chichen-Itza. These are years 
60. 

As the first section closed with the arrival at Chacnouitan, 
which took place upon the 2d Ahau, it was to be expected 
that the second section would continue the sequence of 
Ahaues so as to connect with the necessarily following 13th 
Ahau. But we see that it begins with the 8th Ahau, follows 
with the 6th and closes with the 2d Ahau. 

Before taking notice of the accounts given in these two 
paragraphs let us first ascertain what Ahaues were left out 
between the 2d Ahau, at the end of the first section, and 
the 8th Ahau, with which the second section begins. Ac- 
cording to the rule above given on the alternating Ahaues, 
the missing ones would be the following : The (13), (11), 
(9), (7), (5), (3), (1), (12), and (10th) Ahau. Of these nine ' 
Ahaues, or 180 years, the author had nothing in mind to tell 
us. No event of significance appears to have taken place. 
Perhaps the wanderers had to rest to gather strength before 
attempting farther conquests. Moreover, this time belongs 
to the most ancient epochs of Maya history, and informa- 
tion regarding it was so dim and so obscure that it appeared 
to the author as of no account. The chronological sequence 
thus being established, let us now turn to the contents of the 
two sections, 2 and 3. They begin with the 8th Ahau and 
close with the 13th Ahau. As to the eve">« happening 



40 

within the 8th, 6th, 4:th, 2d and 13th Ahan, they indeed do 
not appear in the wished for sequence. But the sequence, as 
will be shown, can be establislied witliout making interpola- 
tions. It will be noticed that in section 2 the 4th Ahau is 
not mentioned. After having quoted the 8th and 6th Ahau, 
the author passes over this 4th Ahau and mentions the arri- 
val of Ajraekat, belonging to the family of the renowned 
Tntul Xiii, who seems to have led in the conquests of 
Bacalar and Chichen-Itza, which are recorded in section 3, 
as happening in the 4th, 2d and 13th Ahau. That these con- 
quests must be counted into the epoch mentioned with the 
names Stb, 6th, 4th, 2d and 13th Ahau is clearly expressed 
by the words, "w this time,^'' so that no mistake can take 
place as to the intimate connection with the arrival of Ajme- 
kat. We learn moreover that the time which the conquerors 
remained in the province of Chacnouitan is said to have 
been 99 years. These 99 or 100 years cover exactlj' the 
time represented by the above five Ahaues, and when read- 
ing at the end of the 3d paragraph that they had ruled 60 
years in Ziyan-caan Bacalar, it becomes clear that these 60 
years are not years that follow the 99 years, but that they 
were the last years of the 99 mentioned. The two sections 
supplement each other, and from them the following im- 
pression is conveyed, that Chacnouitan was the territory situ- 
ated southwest of the shores of the great' lagoon of 
Bacalar, Tlie wanderers had been waiting during eleven 
Ahaues, from the 13th to the 4th Ahan, before they 
made an attack against the possessors of Bacalar, An 
attempt to take it appears to have been made during the 
8th, 6th and 4th Ahaues, and only accomplished in the 2d 
Ahau, through the arrival or help of Ajmekat, who led them 
further on to the discovery or conquest of Chichen-Itza, in 
the 13th Ahau. 

The difficulty of interpreting the two sections is removed 
as soon as we view them in tlie light of the reasons given, 
not as two distinct epochs of which the one follows the other, 



41 

as Senor Perez does (see commentary), but as belonging to 
one and the same epoch from the 8th to the 13th Ahau. It 
must not be so much questioned what tlie author ought to 
have done in order to represent his history in a logical way, 
and on account of his omissions cast a doubt upon the whole 
record, as how to use what he has left to construct a system 
from these elements, and to avail ourselves unhesitatingly 
of the lielp of the chronological sequence of Ahaues, which 
is and will remain the only reliable thread to lead us tlirough 
and out of the labyrinth. 

Commentary of Senor Perez. — " The manuscript informs us that at 
the 8th Ahau a colony of Toltecs under their leader Holon Chautepeuh, 
marched out from the city of Tulapan, and that in their wanderings 
they spent 4 Ahaues, 8, 6, 4, 2, till they came to Chacnouitan, which 
happened in the first year of the 13th Ahau. To doubt this is not pos- 
sible, for this statement is the beginning and foundation of all later 
dates. According to my calculation which I will explain hereafter, it 
was from the j^ear 144 to 217, which is 97 and not 81 years, as the manu- 
script reports, for if we compute the Ahaues with 24 years, as we have 
shown, and include the first year of the Ahau following as the time of 
their arrival, then the account makes 97 years. They stayed in Chac- 
nouitan with Ajmekat Tutul Xiu during the remaining years of the 13th 
Ahau, until the 2d Ahau. 

These Ahaues, as we have explained, should follow in the order 13, 
9, 7, 5, and not 13, 6, 8, 2, for this latter list represents earlier Ahaues, 
and as they represent difi'erent epochs they can only be expressed by the 
same figures after the expiration of 312 years, thereby clearly showing 
the error. 

It is like-vvise asserted that they remained 99 years in Chacnouitan, 
which could not have been true, for this would have made 119 actual 
years, or only 95 years if v^^e reckon only four Ahaues, without the 
second, for if we regard the succession we miss the 4th Ahau, which 
the manuscript has left out. But the manuscript does not count four 
but five Ahaues, as it reckons an Ahau at 20 years, the five Ahaues less 
one year make the afoi'esaid 99 years." 

. §4. 2^he nth Ahau, 9th, 7th, 5th, dd and 1st Ahau, or 
120 years, they rxdedin Chichen-Itza,whenit was destroyed, 
and they emigrated to Champutun where the Itzaes, holy 
men, had houses. Years 120. 

§5. The %th Ahau they took possession of the territory of 
Champutun, the 4th Ahau, 2d, I'Sth, 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, Sd, 



42 

1st, 12i/i, lOih and 8th, Cham^mtun loas destroyed or aban- 
doned. The Itzaes reigned tioo hundred and sixty years in 
Champtttun when they returned in search of their homes, 
and they lived for several Katunsin the uninhcdjited moun- 
tains. Years 260. 

§6. The Qth Ahau, 4:th Ahau, after 40 years they re- 
turned to their homes once tnore and Champutun was lost to 
them. Years 40. 

The fourth section, in correct sequence, continues the series 
from the 13th Aliau when Chichen-Itza was founded. It 
covers the 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, and 1st Ahau, a space of 
20 years, in which the wanderers make tlic new region of 
Chichen-Itza their metropolis. Enemies, however, whose 
names are not indicated, destroy the place and oblige them 
to look elsewhere. They then turn to Champutun (now 
Champoton, also Potonchan), situated in a sonth westerly 
direction from Chichen-Itza, on the westerly shore of the 
Peninsula. 

The fifth section should begin with the 12th Ahau, but 
instead it follows the 6th Ahau. Hence the (12th), (10th) and 
(8th) Ahau are missing. These 60 years may be supposed 
to be the time required by the exiles to recuperate their 
strength in order to conquer the new territory of Champo- 
ton. In the 6th Ahau then they succeeded in taking Cham- 
poton, and they remained there during the 4th, 2d, 13th, 
11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th, 10th and 8th Ahaus, a full 
Ahau-Katun epoch of 260 years. They were obliged to 
leave Champoton in the 8tb Ahau, and seemed willing to 
return to their old home, but determined to reconquer Cham- 
poton. We are told in the sixth section that two Katuns 
or 40 years, were passed in delays and preparations, cor- 
rectly figured by the 6th and 4th Ahau ; that they then made 
an attempt to reconquer Champoton, failing in which, they 
were obliged to look about for a new home. 

COMMENTxVRY OF SenOR PeREZ TO THE 4tH, 5tH AND 6TH SECTIONS.— 

They remained in Chichen-Itza and ruled there until it was destroyed, 



43 

when they betook themselves to Champoton. Here they built their 
houses during the Uth, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d and 1st Ahaues (sic). If this 
succession should be stated correctly it would be the 10th, 8th, 6th, 4th, 
2d and 13th Ahau, or from the year 452 to 576, A. D., when the 13th 
Ahau expired. The Ahaues represented the years 432, 456, 480, 504, 528 
and 552 A. D. 

§5. In the 6th Ahau they took Champoton and held sway there during 
the following twelve Ahaues until it was destroyed. After this they 
looked again for a home after they had passed several Katunes in the 
mountainous regions, which were the 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th, 
lOfch, 8th, 6th, 4th, 2d and 13th Ahaues, making a complete epoch of 312 
years. Their coming should not have been stated as the 6th, but the 
11th Ahau, according to the explanation. 

§6. In the 6th and 4th Ahau they again erected houses after they had 
lost Champoton, that is after a lapse of 48 years, which requires a con- 
nection with the 11th and 9th Ahau. This occurred in the years 888 to 
936 A. D., for the 11th Ahau began in 888, the 9th in 912, and ended in 
the year 936 A. D. 

§7. In this Katun of tJie '2d Ahau, Ajcuitok Tutul Xiu 
established himself in Uxmal ; the ^d Ahau, 13th, 11th, 
9th, 7th,, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th and V)th Ahau, equal to 200 
years, they governed in Uxmal, with the governors of 
Chichen-Itza and Mayapan. 

The former section closing with the 4th Ahau, this begins 
with the 2d and is followed in correct succession by the 13th, 
11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th and 10th, a space of 200 
years. In the 2d Ahau, under their leader Ajcuitok, they 
settled down in a new region at the town of Uxmal. It 
appears that Chichen-Itza had been rebuilt, and Mayapan 
newly founded. Rulers resided at both places at peace with 
the Tutul Xiu at Uxmal. 

Commentary oi' Senor Perez to SECTioisr 7.— In the 2d Ahau Ajcui- 
tok Tutul Xiu made a settlement in Uxmal, and reigned there with the 
Governors of Chichen-Itza and Mayapan during 2d, 13th, 11th, 9th, 7th, 
5th, 3d, 1st, 12th and 10th Ahau. A correction of these Ahaues gives us 
the 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th, 10th, 8th, 6th, 4th and 2d, and brings them 
into harmony with the Christian era, to wit : the years 936, 960, 987, 
1008, 1032, 1056, 1080, 1104, 1128 and 1152 A. D. The 2d Ahau ended 
with the foundation and with the completion of 240 years in the year 
1176, for the foundation took place in the year 936, when the 7th Ahaa 
just now corrected began. 
7 



44 

§8. These are the Kahms, 11th, 9th and Qth Ahau {sic.) 
In the 8th the Governor of Ghichen-Itza was deposed be- 
cause he murmured disrespectfully against liunac-eel. 
This happened to Ohacxihchac of Ghichen-Itza^ gov- 
ernor of the fortress of Mayalpan. Ninety years had 
elapsed, but the tenth year of the Sth Ahau was the year in 
which he was overthrown by Ajzinte-yut-chan with Tzunte- 
cum, Taxcal^ Pantemit, Xuch-cuet, Ytzcuat and Kakalte' 
cat. These are the names of the seven Mayalpanes. 

§9. In the same Katun of the Sth Ahau, they attacked 
King Ulmil in consequence of his quarrel with Ulil, King 
of YzaTnal ; thirteen divisions of troops he had when he was 
routed by Hunac-eel ; in the Qth A hau the war was over 
after 34 years. 

As the foregoing section 7 closed with the 10th Ahau, we 
should expect section 8 to begin with the 8th Ahau. We 
read, however, 11th, 9th and 6th Ahau. This sequence is 
evidently incorrect in itself, because the 9th can never be 
followed by the 6th Ahau. If the period began with the 
11th Ahau, the sequence should follow with the 9th and 7th 
Ahau. The correct reading of the text, however, will result 
from the examination of that which follows immediately 
after this introductory sentence. There we read these 
words : " In the Sth Ahau the governor of Chichen-Itza was 
deposed," etc., and this same Sth Ahau is mentioned again in 
the sentence that follows, beginning with " Ninety years," 
etc. So also it reappears for a third time in section 9, at 
its beginning. Now, as section 8 was expected to commence 
with the Sth Ahau, it is more than probable that the author 
has blundered in some way. We presume that instead of 
11th, 9th and 6th, he intended to write 10th Sth and 6th. 
The 10th would indicate a reference made to the ending of 
the last section. The Sth and 6th are those in which all the 
events described in our two sections occur, for the insulted 
governor Hunac-eel of section 8 is the same who takes re- 
venue in section 9. 



45 

This difficulty being removed, another arises, how to inter- 
pret the words." ninety years elapsed, but the tenth year of 
the 8th Ahan was the year in which he was overthrown," etc. 
This reads as if these ninety years were predecessors of the 
8t.h Ahau. If this were so, thev would fall in the 10th, 12th, 
1st, 3d and the lirst half of the 5th Ahau. Of such Ahaues 
mention is made in the foreo^oing section T. But we notice 
these Ahaues were passed in peace and not in war, as our 
passage evidently suggests. We cannot help thinking that 
another blunder is concealed in this phrase, and that the 
author meant to write niyie 3-ears. If we write, J^ine years 
had elajysed, but the tenth year of the 8th Ahau teas the 
yearin which he icas overthroirn, the idea of the author seems 
stated correctly. These nine years, then, would have fallen 
in the 10th Ahau, with which we proposed to commence 
section 8, and nine years added to the twenty years of the 
8th Ahau, make twenty-nine years, and five more years of 
the 6th Ahau give those thirty-four years, which, at the end 
of section 9 are expressly indicated as passed in war. Such 
is the sense which we give to these two somewhat perplexing 
sections. 

COMjiENTARY OF Sesor Perez TO Sectioxs 8 A^TD 9.— The Ahaues 
11th, 9th, 6th and 8th passed away, and in the latter the governor Hunac- 
eel of Mayapan overthrew Chacxibchac, the governor of Chichen-Itza, 
because he had spoken ill of him, and in the 10th year of the last Ahau, 
the seven chiefs of Huuac-eel overcame the governor Chacxibchac. If 
a correction is to be made it should then stand 13th, 11th, 9th and 7th 
Ahau, or the years 1176, 1200, 1224 and 1248 to the year 1272 A. D. Hence 
it was the year 1258, the tenth year of the 7th Ahau that Chacxibchac 
was overcome. 

During the 8th Ahau occurred the destruction of the power of King 
Ulmil, because he had waged war against Ulil of Izamal, and Hunac-eel 
at the head of 13 divisions overcame Ulmil in the 6th Ahau. [We are 
unable to give the correction of Senor Perez, as we do not comprehend 
his text.] 

§10. In the Uh Ahau, Uh Ahau, 2d Ahau, \Zth Ahau, 
11th Ahau the^ fortified territory of Mayapan vjas invaded 
hy the men of Itza under their king Ulmil because they had 



46 

avails, and governed in cominon the people of Mayalpan ; 
eighty-three years elapsed after this event, and at the begin- 
ning of the Wth Ahau, Mayalpan was destroyed by strangers 
of the Uitzes or Highlanders, as was also Ta,ncaj of May- 
alpan. Years 83. 

§11. In the ^th Ahau, Mayalpan was destroyed; the epochs 
of the 6th, 4cth, 2d elapsed, and at this period the /Spaniards, 
for the first time arrived, and gave the name of Yucatan 
to this province, sixty years after the destructid'n of the for- 
tress. Years 60. 

In section 10 the 6th Ahau follows the 8th correctly, and 
the 4th, 2d, 13th and 11th Ahaues were passed in internal 
wars between Chichen-ltza and Mayalpan. In the 11th 
Ahau a highland people, called Uitze (probably Quiche), 
unite with the rulers of Chichen-ltza, and they then succeed 
in destroying Mayalpan. In section 11 another destruction 
of Mayalpan is reported. As this section begins with the 
8th Ahau, and the foregoing ended with the 11th, a gap was 
left which represents the (9th), (7th), (5th), (3d), (1st), (12th) 
and (10th) Ahau. This gap undoubtedly means a period of 
great exhaustion to both contending parties, and as a second 
destruction of Mayalpan is reported in the 8th. Ahau, we 
may fairly assume that this city had recovered, and in making 
a last efibrt to regain supremacy, was finally conquered. We 
understand the two reported destructions of this city as the 
heroic and victorious effort of the Maya race to exterminate 
the foreign Nahuatl invader, who, for a long period suc- 
ceeded in taking a strong foothold in the country. In the 
succeeding epochs of the 6th, 4:th and 2d Ahau, exhaustion 
from the war and disintegration must have ensued, for such 
was the condition in which the Spaniards found the Maya 
people in the following 13th and 11th Ahaues, which were 
the last they were allowed to count. 

COiMMENTARY OF SenOR PbREZ TO SECTIONS 10 AND 11. — In the 

6th, 4th, 2d and 11th Ahaues the fortified land of Mayapan is attacked 
by the men of Itza and their king Ulmil, fqr it had walls, and the people 



47 

were governed in a community. The place was destroyed by foreigners 
from the Highland^ in the 11th Ahau, and Tancaj of Mayapan was also 
conquered. The correction of the reckoning gl^es us the 5th, 3d, 1st, 
12th and 10th Ahau. We have stated that the 5th Ahau began in the 
year 1272, and the others were consequently 1296, 1320, 1344, and 1368, 
and the 8th Ahau ended in the year 1392 A. D. 

In the 8th Ahau Mayapan was destroyed, then followed the Katunes 
of the 6th, 4th and 2d Ahau, in which latter the Spaniards passed by 
• and gave to the province the name of Yucatan. Hence, the Ahaues 
begin again their regular course, though it is a contradiction to say in 
the foregoing . section that Mayapan had been destroyed in the 11th 
Ahau (corrected to the 10th Ahau). It would perhaps have been better 
to say it had been destroyed for the second time, possibly for the pur- 
pose of rebuilding it. The 8th Ahau began in the year 1392, the 6th, 
4th and 2d Ahaues fell in the years 1416, 1440 and 1464, which last ended 
in the year 1488 A. D. 

§12. T/ie 13tk Ahau, 11th Ahau pestilence and small- 
pox were in the castles. In the 13th Ahau chief Ajpuld 
died. Six years were wanting to complete the 13th Ahau. 
This year was counted toioards the east of the wheel, and 
hegan on the Uh Kan. Ajpuld died on the lUh day of the 
month Zip, on the Wi Imix ; and that it m,ay he known in 
numbers it was the year 1536, sixty years after the demoli- 
tion of the fortress. 

§13. Before the terminatio7i of the 11th Ahau the Span- 
iards arrived, holy men from the East came with them when 
they reached the land. The 9th Ahau was the commence- 
ment of baptism and Christianity ; and in this year vms 
the arrival of Toroba (Toral), the first bishop, 1544. 

After the lltli section had closed with the 2d Ahau, the 
12th section correctly begins with the 13th Ahau, and the 
13th and last section closed the manuscript with the 11th 
Ahan, when the government of the Mayas was brought to 
an end by the arrival of the Spaniards. The particular de- 
tails contained in these two sections will be discussed here- 
after. 

Commentary of Senor Perez to Sections 12 and 13.— In the 13th 
and the 11th Ahaues pestilence and small-pox reigned. In the sixth 
year, before the expiration of the 13th Ahau, Ajpula died at the time 



48 

when four Katunes were counted on the east of the wheel. His death 
happened on the 18th day of the mouth Zip, on the 9th day Imix. This 
date is wrong according to my reckoning; for the year 4 Cavac expired 
at the beginning and not at the end of the epoch, otherwise it would 
have been the year 4 Muluc. In the first case, the year 4 Cavac was that 
of 1496, in the other case it would be the year 1506, and never that of 
1536, for in that year the 9th Ahau began.*" 

We give, besides, a recapitulation which Senor Perez him- 
self added to his commentary, and for which we are indebted 
to the kindness of the late Dr. C. Hermann Berendt : — 

" From what we have stated it will be seen that by only taking into 
account the number of epochs which are mentioned in the manuscript, 
and which elapsed between events, and by restoring this nomenclature 
according to the progressive series of the Ahaues, it appears that all 
indicated facts occur within the space of 58 epochs of 24 years 
each, which makes in all 1392 years to the expiration of the Uth Ahau. 
If we subtract these years from the year 1536, in which the Uth Ahau 
expired, 1444 A. D. remains as the year when the Toltecs seem to have 
arrived to colonize the country. 

But if we allow the epochs and their enumeration to stand as they 
are, and in order to integrate the Ahaues in the sequence above indi- 
cated, add those which are missing, we should find that 97 epochs, 
each of 24 years had passed. The sum of 2328 years, represented by 
this count, is a space of time of too great magnitude to bring into har- 
mony with Mexican history, and would signify that this country was 40 
years older than the foundation of Rome, and 17 years older than the 
Introduction of Greek Olympiads, which is very improbable. 

Should any hypercritical person fail to believe in the list of epochs 
because their succession is incorrect, let him remember that the list has 
much to render it worthy of belief, though it must be subjected to cor- 
rections. Still less ought any one to refuse belief in the historical 



* Senor Perez in his commentary makes his calculation that 1496 was 
the year of the death of Chief Ajpula, and succeeds in giving it a plausible 
appearance of correctness. But we observe that in order to reach this 
date he was not aware of having altered the words of the Maya text, 
and those of his own translation. This translation said correctly : 
" There were still six years wanting before the completion of the 13th 
Ahau." In the text of the commentary, however, we find him starting 
his count on the supposition that the original text was the sixth year of 
the 13th Ahau. Though this change is by no means allowable, he suc- 
ceeds, ingeniously enough, in ai'riving at the year above quoted, and in 
stating also the dates of the day and month, precisely as the annalist 
had set them down. 



49 

statement of events. The manuscript indicates a traditional origin 
common to the history of all primitive nations. It is noticeable that no 
traditions exist to contradict the manuscript, and that it is the only one 
thus far discovered. The contents of the manuscript might be thus 
epitomized : — 

1. The Toltecs occupied 4 epochs in going from their home to Chac- 
nouitan. 144—217 A. D. 

2. They arrived there in the first year of the succeeding epoch, and 
remained still 4 epochs more with their chieftain, Ajmekat Tutul Xiu. 

218—360 A. D. 

3. They discovered Ziyan-Caan or Bacalar and ruled therein 3 epochs, 
till they discovered Chichen-Itza. 860—432 A. D. 

4. They remained at Chichen-Itza 6 epochs, till they set out to colonize 
Champoton. 432—676 A. D. 

5. From the discovery of Champoton, which they colonized and ruled 
until they lost it, 13 epochs elapsed. 576—888 A. D. 

6. They remain 2 epochs in the wilderness till they return again to 
Chichen-Itza. 888—936 A. D. 

7. In the following epoch Ajcuitok Tutul Xiu colonized Uxmal, and 
ruled during 10 epochs in harmony with the governors of Mayapan and 
Chichen. 936—1176 A. D. 

8. Three other epochs pass, and in the 10th year of the following 
epoch Chacxibchac, ruler of Chichen, was defeated by Hunac-eel, ruler 
of Mayapan, and his captains. 1176 — 1258 A. D. 

9. In the same epoch of the defeat of the ruler of Chichen they 
marched against Ulmil, who was king in the same Chichen, because he 
had waged war against Ulil, king of Izamal, which war Hunac-eel, 
brought to a close in the following epoch. 1258 — 1572 A. D. 

10. In spite of Ulmil's defeat this raler of Chichen planned an inva- 
sion of Mayapan. After the lapse of 2 more epochs, and in the third 
year of that which followed, Mayapan was desti'oyed in the year 1368 
by strangers who came from the mountains. 1272 — 1392 A. D. 

11. Besides the three named epochs, and indeed in the last of them, 
the Spaniards passed along, who gave to the province the name of Yu- 
catan. 1392—1488 A. D. 

12. In the following epoch an epidemic reigned even in the temples 
and fortified places, and in the 6th year Ajpula died on the 11th of Sep- 
tember, 1493. 1488—1512 A. D. 

13. In the 11th and last epoch (1536 — 1576) the conquerors arrived, to 
wit : in 1527, and in the following the first Bishop came, in the year 
1541, and the conquest was completed in 1560 A. D. 

Thus much I have been able to bring to light in this matter. But with 
the help of dates, which I do not possess, and with that of the travels 
you have made in our country, the information which you have gathered 



50 

must have enlarged your ideas on this subject, and I wish you would be 
so kind as to communicate them to your most devoted 

F. I. JUAN PIO PEREZ. 
Peto, April 2, 1842, 

Mr. J. Lloyd Stephens." 



Concluding Remarks. 

It will be noticed from the text of the Manuscript, that 
no events are commemorated but such as are connected with 
war. In this style also the Nahuatl annals were drawn up. 
"With both nations war was recognized as the only fact 
worthy to be kept in the memory of the coming generations. 
Nor does the autlior state whether the country was ruled by 
kings or an emperor. It is .rather suggested (section 7) that 
the tribes were gathered in groups, with a large town as a 
centre, and this town was governed by a priest. The words 
halach ui7iicil, holy men, were somewhat too freely inter- 
preted with governor by the translator. In regard to the 
considerable gaps in the sequence of years in the manuscript, 
we will not longer attribute them to a lack of memory on 
the part of the author, but to the custom generally observed 
among the annalists to be regardless of any work of peace 
performed by the nation ; and whenever the question shall 
be discussed, at what epoch the building of the huge pyra- 
mids and temples took place, these dates will contribute to 
the answer. Periods of peace certainly began with years of 
great exhaustion ; but recovery must have ensued, and the 
unshaken energy of the people and their leaders must have 
been directed to the undertaking of works, in which they 
could exhibit also their taste for pomp and architectural 
achievements. The gaps, therefore,, instead of casting a 
shadow upon the authority and completeness of the manu- 
script, may rather be thought to perform the silent office of 
throwing light into the obscure past of the Maya history. 
As to the method, however, which we employed in comput- 



51 

ing the omitted periods of Ahanes, we have only to say that it 
grew out from the nature of the Maya enumeration itself. 
The two ends of the interrupted series being given, the 
number of the intervening Ahaues could be easily supplied. 

What now remains is, to discover for the restored and com- 
pleted series of Ahaues the corresponding chronological 
expressions in our era. We find the total Ahau periods 
mentioned in the annals were 60. We have thought it nec- 
essary to complete twenty more periods, so that we have 
seventy periods (20X70), or 1400 years. As soon 
therefore as we know in which year of our era the last 
or 13th Ahau mentioned in the manuscript fell, we can, 
by reckoning backward, find the years date of the first 
Ahau mentioned, to wit : the 8th Ahau, and also deter- 
mine the dates and events of each of all the other intervening 
Ahaues. The manuscript fortunately aflTords us the neces- 
sary material for determining with incontestable certainty the 
years date of the last 13th Ahau. It is the following : we 
read in the 12th section that Chief Ajpula died in a year 
when there were still six years wanting before the expira- 
tion of the 13tli Ahau, and that the year of his decease was 
1536 A. D. 

According to this statement the 13th Ahau ended with 
the year 1542. Bishop Landa (see §41 of his Relacion de 
las Cosas d6 Yucatan) confirms the correctness of the above 
calculation, though he says that the 13th Ahau expired with 
the year 1641. Landa undoubtedly selects this date of 
June 10th, 1641, as that of the last decisive victory at T'ho 
over the Indians, while the author of the manuscript may 
have had in mind the date when Merida was ofiicially incor- 
porated as the capital, and a dependency of the Spanish 
crown, which was January 6, 1542.* If we subtract the 
total number of Ahaues already obtained, and amounting to 
1400 years, from the year 1542, we obtain for the first epoch. 



*Eligio Ancona, Historia de Yucatan, Merida, 1879, Vol. L, page 333. 



52 

named in the manuscript whicli is the 8th Ahau, or tlie 
starting of the conqerors from Tulapan, the 3'ears 142 — 162 
of our modern Christian era. 

Of all the dates calculated from the manuscript only that 
of 1542 is well established from a historical point of view, 
as that when Merida was declared the future capital of the 
conquered country. It is represented by the last year of 
the 13th Ahau. A second date and event, that of the final 
destruction of Mayapan, is mentioned by CogoUudo, who 
places it about the year 1420 A. D., which would give (see 
table, page 54) a 12th or a 10th Ahau period. Bat the 
manuscript in §11 gives Yaxac Ahau^ or the 8th Ahau, which 
according to our computation represents the years between 
1442 and 1462. Landa agrees with this statement (E-elacion 
de las Cosas de Yucatan, §IX., page 52). ''^ It is 7iow 120 
years since Mayajoan was destroyed.''^ Landa wrote in the 
year 1666, therefore, in his conception Maj^apan was destroyed 
in 1446, which year falls correctly in the 8th Ahau. 

Landa's account agrees also with another event mentioned 
in the manuscript, the wanderings of the Itzaes 40 years in 
the wilderness before they settled down at Dxmal aud Maya- 
pan, in the 6th and 4th Ahau, which is in our calculation 
from 942 — 982 A. D. Landa, however, does not fix the 
year (Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan, §YIIL, page 46). 
In §YIII., page 49, he likewise speaks of a king of the 
tribes of Cocomes, hostile to the Itzaes, who kept a Mexi- 
can garrison in Mayapan. This is an allusion to the seven 
Mayapanes mentioned in the manuscript (in §8), all of whom 
have Mexican (Nahuatl) names. There also the year is 
not given. However, his confirmation of so early events in 
Maya history appears to be of high value. 

It is fortunate that the manuscript just in the middle of 
its narration exhibits a long succession of Ahau periods 
without any gaps at all. We can count through sections 5, 
6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, thirty-one Ahau periods or 620 years 
of uninterrupted history. They represent, according to our 



53 

calculation, the epochs from the years 682 — 1303 A, D., or 
from the taking of Champotou to the first destruction of 
Mayapan by the assistance of the foreign Uitzes. This com- 
pact period of time touches a very remote epoch in the his- 
tory of the civilized nations of Central America. It reaches 
backwards to an epoch when in Europe, Pepin D'Heristal 
and his family laid the foundation to their future ascendancy 
on the throne of France. If we look still further backward 
in our table, we notice another long period of timie (sections 
3 and 4) which represents the sum of eight uninterrupted 
Ahaues, equal to 160 years. The connection of these two 
great periods was re-established by the interpolation of the 
three Ahaues, 8, 10 and 12 in section 5, a correction for 
which there should be not the least question. Groping our 
way, we should reach the epochs wlien Bacalar was founded, 
with a date as early as between 462 and 482 A. D. At 
this point we are no longer able to follow the conquerors on 
their route. The location of Bacalar is well known to us, 
but that of Chacnouitan and Tnlapan has escaped our inves- 
tigation. Notwithstanding, by the aid of the quoted Ahaues 
we are able to fix the time for the long rest and residence in 
Chacnouitan, and for their remote starting from Tulapan. 
It comprises the epochs backwards from the year 462 to that 
of 162, and since the text reports' that eighty years were 
spent in the migration, we are entitled to fix the time for 
the arrival in the peninsula with the year 242 A. D. It is , 
of significance for our purpose, that this settling on the 
peninsula can be computed with the year 242 A. D. It repre- 
sents, as will be seen, the 13th Ahau,a date always assumed by 
the Maya chronologists as one with which they designate the 
commencement of a new cycle. 



54 



Ei ^ 



r— ' 


o 


^ 


SH 






o 


0) 


'Pi. 




r/J 




Q) 






o 


%^ 


-M 


o 




o 


TJ 


03 


O 


ra 





<1 



§:3 

o 



G 


^ 




s8 


■ ' 






<D 




-S 


.u 




!« 


^ 




o 


>^ 




"Sd 


'^ 




o 


H 










o 


'S 




c 


^ 




o 


O 




^ 


o 




^ i-{ 


o 




o 


<t 


1 


c3 




[ 


OQ 


_ 




_a 


si 


c« 




>-i 


t_, 


'S 


QJ 


(D 


-u 






a 


c 


C 


o 


05 


e« 


o 


-i^ 


VC 


o 


_C0 


cfl 




t^ 


'i^ 


3 


^ 




c3 


o 


6 


fcJD 




^ 


• i— 1 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 








o 


OQ 


CO 






-4-' 

OS 


^ 


P>^ 


-ID 


H 


(D 


&£ 




rC 





':^ (M iM 

S C^ CO 
_ <N <M 

Poo 
;=^ <N CO 



CO o ." o oo 

r— I C^5 *J CO CO 
rt rt O r-< .-I 



<0 00 



o ^lof 



a> -^ 
3 ^ 



j^ ^ cq C-1 
rt T3 --I >-l 

- "^ '^^ ^ 



-^S ^ 






- 3 

p3 ^ 



S2 '^'~ 



o 



(M -a CO cv, 






od CO 



M 2 a 



C .-I 



-I ;5 N 



^ lO 



S ." CO 
+J ^ o 









II "ej <M 



lO 



J. P< « CO 






PQ 03 M tn 



« a 



-* o 



S, o 



H M 



cq CT 



o 
a, 

R 


5 


o 


o 


3 

a 


3J 


D. 


*i 




fl 


O 


^2 


a; 


o 


OJ 


g 




i4 


ri 








eS 




01 




^ 


^ 


n^ 


a 






<u 




X 




^ 


jia 


H 


t3 




H 



c3 T3 
S3 ^5 



05 



v^ -a -5; 
a 

C3 

a, 



•O «5 t^H 

!- O Q 



HI 



W 






«£> i-H 



5 S3 « 

o w 5 

^ H S 

O Ei( 3 

a O K 



CO -* 



55 

It will be noticed that the result obtained by our compu- 
tation is almost identical with that of Senor Perez. In his 
conception the manuscript comprises tlie epoch from 144 — 
1536 A. D. ; in ours, that from 142 — 1542. A coincidence 
like this may be thought to justify the conclusion that al- 
though we differed in our methods of interpretation and 
reckoning, the agreement of the results appears so much the 
more satisfactory. We should be pleased to view the 
subject in so favorable a light, but fear we cannot. For, 
wliilst, on the one hand, we are far from claiming any infal- 
libility for our modus procedendi, on the other hand, we 
cannot help protesting against Senor Perez's methods of 
obtaining his results. Besides giving to the Ahau the not 
admissible duration of '24 years, he further makes an 
evident mistake in the summing up of the Ahaues quoted in 
the manuscript, by counting 58 of them instead of 50. He 
does not seem aware that the Maya author mentions various 
of these Ahaues twice, and even thrice, a fact which we 
took care to point out in the course of our discussion. It 
is only by increasing the length of the Ahau to 24 years, 
and also by counting 8 Ahaues more than there actually 
were, that Senor Perez is able to arrive at the date of 144 
A. D, for the exodus from Tulapan. If we should indeed in- 
cline to make allowance for his choice of the 24-year period, 
because as it seems to us he was misled by his authorities, he 
notwithstanding must be held accountable for the mistake 
made in counting in those eight ill-starred Ahaues. His 
computation therefore being defective in itself, the favorable 
impression gained from the fact that two interpreters arrived 
at an almost identical result, will disappear. Such an agree- 
ment would have been very valuable if either of the two 
interpreters could show that his method stands the test of in- 
controvertible proof. Therefore, it is only by chance that 
Seiior Perez's mistakes in reckoning make up very nearly 
the same number of years that we have obtained ; first, by 
means of the interpolation of 20 more Ahaues ; and second, 
by allowing only 20 years for each Ahau period. 



56 

In conclusion it may be proper to make some statements 
as to the position which this manuscript liolds in aboriginal 
literature, and also as to its value and use as a chronological 
document. In the first place we are fully convinced of 
its genuineness. We have not been able to examine the 
document itself as to the material upon which it was written, 
nor as to the characters of the text, nor as to external ap- 
pearance, and we are not informed into whose hands it fell 
after it left those of its author before it came into the pos- 
session of Seiior Perez. But we believe that Senor Perez 
had good reasons for regarding it as a document prepared 
in the last half of the 16th century, at a time near to that 
when Yucatan was conquered by the Spaniards. The lan- 
guage and construction belong to that epoch, as we are told. 
But even if it should not be an original, but a second or 
third copy, this would not be enough to shake our faith in 
the authenticity and importance of its contents. I'or set- 
ting aside the fact that its matter has a specific national 
character, and presupposes a knowledge on the part of its 
author which only a native could have obtained, the style of 
its composition indicates its national bearing. 

Let us fancy ourselves in the position of the Maya writer 
while at work. Before him, on the table, stands the wheel 
for counting the Ahaues, and as he bends over the sheets 
containing the painted annals, his eye turns alternately from 
the paper to the wheel, making a careful comparison. Then 
he pauses and considers in his mind what expressions he must 
use, and afterwards begins to write. From time to time 
he cannot forbear, however, casting an occasional glance at 
the letters of the Spanish alphabet, in order to shape them 
correctly, for he is still a beginner in this new art. Now, 
perhaps he wavers for a moment, and then begins anew. 
The recollection of some ancient Maya song steals in upon 
his mind, and by the aid of a few significant sentences he 
incorporates the substance with his text. To interpolations 
of this kind we may attribute such phrases as " the disre- 



57 

spectful utterances of Chacxibcliac against Hunac-eel." Of 
the ancient Maya ballads, it is to be regretted, none are 
known to exist. Yet there is no reason for relinquishing the 
hope altogether, that some day, at least, a copy of the painted 
annals, which our Maya writer evidently consulted, may be 
discovered, while we can willingly dispense with the ballads. 

As long as such hopes fail of realization, we must be satis- 
fied with the slight, but yet important, contribution offered 
us in the manuscript. We may complain of its brevity, yet 
notwithstanding it is the most complete document we possess 
of ancient American history. It is all the more important 
for the reason that it relates to Yucatan, which in our opin- 
ion, is the very cradle of early American civilization. It is 
also pleasant to observe that the manuscript is not at vari- 
ance with what we have learned from the fragmentary 
records made by Landa, Lizana and Cogolludo. Notwithstand- 
ing its imperfections, it interprets and explains much that 
had hitherto appeared uncertain and deficient. It is of un- 
doubted authenticity, and forms a firm foundation for the 
reconstruction of the history of the past, which till now has 
remained enigmatical, and which is faintly expressed by the 
crumbling ruins of the peninsula. 

The manuscript, finally, afibrds a guarantee that the long 
past not only reached back to the remotest epoch of our 
era, but that more than all, it stands in a near, perhaps in 
the most intimate, connection with the history of the Na- 
huatl race. In reference to the homogeneous structure of the 
Maya and Nahuatl calendars we have already expressed our 
belief that these two nations were closely related to each other. 
In the traditions of both occurs the name of Tula or Tulapan, 
as a fatherland common to each of them.* This supposition 

*With reference to the Mayas, consult the Quiche traditions in Bras- 
seur de Bourbourg's Popol Vuh, pages 215, 217 and 236, and Brasseurde 
Bourboarg's Memorial of Tecpan Atitlan, page 170, note 3. For the 
Nahuatl race, Brasseur de Bourbourg's Histoire des Nations civilisees 
du Mexique, Vol. I., Appendix, page 428, in extracts made from the 
Codex Chimalpopoca. 



58 



appears to us still farther justified by the circumstance that 
the chronological annals of both nations revert to the same 
period of time as a starting point. As regards the Nahuatls, 
we refer to the circle of signs engraved on the Calendar 
Stone which gave us the information that the annalists of 
Anahuac in the year 1479, counted back twelve hundred 
and forty-eight years to the celebration of their first festival 
in honor of the sun ; that is, they carried back their political 
or religious record to the year 231 A. D. The Maya manu- 
script corresponds to this date, as we think, since the year 
242 A. D. resulted from our calculation. It was the year 
in which the ancient conquerors, after wandering 80 years, 

The Maya Ahaues of the MSS., brought into correspondence 

WITH THE YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN ErA : — 



> 


to 




t> 


o 




> 


O 




?> 


O 


ty 


n 




u 


p- 




cr 


D- 




p" 


C3" 


c 


^ 










g 


2_ 
Er" 




p 

c 


2. 
S3* 


c 






o 






ffi 






to 


c+ 


on 


O 




00 


5" 




K 


p" 




0) 


p" 








e 






cs 






B 


. 








•I 




, 








p 


10 


118 




11 


262 ] 




11 


782 ■] 








8 


98 




9 


282 




9 


802 




11 


1302 ^ 




6 


78 




7 


302 ^ 




7 


822 M 




9 


1322 




4 


58 




5 


322 • 




6 


842 !=3 




7 


1342 . 
1362 ^ 




2 


38 




3 


342 > 




3 


862 

882 g: 
902 g 

942 p 




5 




13 


18 




1 
12 
10 

8 


362 I' 


1 
12 
10 

8 


' 


3 

1 
12 
10 


1382 tf 
1402 g- 
1422 «= 
1442 p:1 






a 




6o2 *^ 
402 W 
422 ^ 


r- 






5' 




6 


442 g 




6 


962 S" 




3 


1462 ^ 




09 






4 


462 ' 




4 


982 ^ 




6 


1482 g 




. 






2 


482 




2 


1002 




4 


1502 • 








13 


502 




13 


1022 




2 


1522 




• 


£fl 




11 




11 


1042 1 




13 


1542 




11 


2 


522 1 






9 


22 




9 


542 




9 


1062 








7 


42 




7 


562 „ 




7 


1082 M 








5 


62 




5 


582 t-i 




5 


1102 r^ 








3 


82 




3 


602 h> 




3 


1122 ^ 








1 


102 




1 


622 g- 




1 


1142 ^ 


. 






12 


122 




12 


642 S 


' 


12 


1162 g 






10 


142 




10 


662 ^ 




10 


1182 [;H 








8 


162 




8 


682 ^ 




8 


1202 P 








6 


182 




6 


702 g 




6 


1222 g 
1242 • 








4 


202 




4 


722 • 




4 








2 


222 




2 


742 




2 


1262 








13 


242 




13 


762 




13 


1282 









59 

arrived on the Island of Chacnouitan where they made a 
permanent settlement. This event happened in the 13th 
Ahau (see table), which, as we know, is the starting point of 
Maya clironology, and likewise the first date of that name 
which the manuscript mentions. The difference of 11 years 
which appears in the Nahnatl computation cannot be re- 
garded as of much importance. 

If, however, it should seem desirable to examine chrono- 
loo-ical parallels we shall refer our readers to a second chap- 
ter on Central American chronology which is hereafter to 
appear, in which we propose to undertake the task of illus- 
trating and explaining still further the parallelism of Maya 
and Nahuatl dates. It will then be proved that in this 
written and still existing Nahuatl chronology, supported by 
the date 231 A. D., found on the Calendar Stone, a still 
earlier date designated as X Calli can be found, which repre- 
sents the year 137 A. D. In this year, according to the 
annals, a great eclipse of the sun took place, with the re- 
markable statement that it occurred exactly at the end of a 
year at 12 o'clock noon. In our manuscript we find the 
first date preceding the settlement of Chacnouitan designated 
with the 8th Ahau, the date of the setting out from Tula- 
pan, which we have already stated to be the years 142 — 162 
A. D. Another agreement is that the Nahuatl records show 
that 166 years before the occurrence of the above mentioned 
eclipse of the sun in the year 1 Tec^atl, a congress of astrolo- 
gers to amend the calendar of the nation took place at a 
town called Huehuetlapallan, and by reckoning back we find 
that this year corresponds with the year 29 B. C. If we then 
follow a hint which Sehor Perez has very ingeniously fur- 
nished that the manuscript strangely begins with an 8th 
Ahau instead of a 13th Ahau, and that the Maya chronology 
could be dated back to such a 13th Ahau as a proper begin- 
ning connected with some interesting event, we find by 
reckoning back from the 8th to the 13th Ahau the corres- 
ponding date to be the years 18 — 38 B. C. 
9 



60 

Now, the results gained in this line of investigation, can 
be formulated as folloM's : — 

1. That the conquerors and settlers of the Yucatan penin- 
sula, as well as those of the Anahuac lakes, were joint par- 
ticipants in a correction of their national calendar about the 
year 29 B. C. 

2. That about the 3^ear 137 A. D., when a total eclipse of 
the sun took place, the ancestors of both nations set out 
from their common fatherland, Tula or Tulapan. 

3. That about the year 231 A. D., both nations made 
their appearance on the coast of Central America, and suc- 
ceeded in conquering a large portion of the peninsula. 

It is true that we have only documentary evidence to sub- 
stantiate the theory just referred to. But, if we do not pos- 
sess the desirable evidence of monumental inscriptions, it 
behooves us to examine and to weigh carefully that which 
still remains. In this connection we should also remember 
that the sculptor, in carving his records, was not guided 
by liis memory alone, but that he copied the symbols from 
the sacred books of his race ; and that on the other hand, 
our learned Maya writer, when translating these latter into 
written phonetic language, drew his text, as did the sculptor 
from similar sources. 

If therefore with the help of written records we can build 
up hypotheses partially satisfactory, and not altogether im- 
probable, we have accomplished all that could be expected 
for the present, at least, and have perhaps excited an inter- 
est in a branch of history which has hitherto been held as 
dead and unproductive. 

In conclusion, we would express the' hope that the Maya 
manuscript may be submitted to a rigid critical and linguistic 
examination, and that the publication of the work may be 
appended to a heliotype copy of the original in order to ex- 
hibit to students a document of so great importance, and to 
ensure its preservation. 



'ASS' 




:M 



4^n^-<.^i^ 




THE 



KATUNES OF MAYA HISTORY. 



A CIIAPTKK IN THE 



EARLY CHRONOLOGY OF CENTRAL AMERICA. 



Y.X PIIILIPP T. .1. YALENTINL Ph.D. 



LB D '10 



